Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures Comments by Rob Fahey

So its better than it was but scores less.. hmm strange

So based on the final paragraph the game is better than back when it got a 8/10 therefore it receives a 6/10. Assuming you really mean it, that could be interpreted as the original review being a 5/10 with an applied +3 for advertisement and promises.

get Schwarzenegger to do a few adverts, that'll get a couple ..people

Why on earth did you score it so high to begin with? Maybe if it got a 6/10 originally the developers would of pulled their socks up quicker :P

Funnily enough, I was just re-reading the old review and was about to ask when we could expect to see the re-review...

This review is much closer to what the original should have been, but one thing AoC does very well is bamboozle you in its early stages. It IS an incredible game when you start - visually it's stunning, the quests are interesting, the lore is all present and you really do feel like you're in for a treat. But once you leave Tortage, you realise the game is all front-loaded in terms of content. Outside of the Pirate Haven, it's a dull, lifeless world with lots of wandering around, channelled zones, a small game world and a host of glitches and frustrations. There's no feeling of advancement, for example. You'll look the same at Level 38 as you did at Level 21. You'll be in the same damned zones for most of your play time and you'll be fighting the same tired bad-guys using the same moves.

I can understand why the original review was so over-zealous but - as this one points out - once the shine wears off, you realise that there's actually very little here in terms of actual gaming.

That's the score I was giving it all along, EG, good for you.

But SHAME ON YOU for bowing to corporate ties/pressures to award the game an unwarranted high score at release, and which ultimately led many to fork out hard-earned (or not so hard-earned) dough for a lesser product.

Still. You came through in the end. Now let's keep it that way, please.

They need you just as much as you need them by now.

4thVariety, SleepyMagpie: there honestly wasn't any outside pressure. Just, as Rob says in this piece, genuine confidence and optimism, which turned out to be sadly misplaced.

genuine confidence and optimism, which turned out to be sadly misplaced.

-----

I felt exactly the same way. It IS a great game. For about a week. But play it for any longer and you start to see the holes in the game and realise that it's simply unfinished. Not in that "oh, the name is spelt wrong, we'd better fix it" sort of way. No, more in the "Well, I've got sod-all to do now in the game - where's the content?" kind of way.

The game DID feel like it deserved a high score when it first came out.

this review is SPOT ON. Well done EG.

Im still waiting patiently for the features mentioned 2 years ago!

whoops

I think it's shocking you have changed your score only 2 months after release, you gave WoW 3 years before a re-review, Funcom are in enough trouble as it is and this don't help, why the inflated score in the first place?

You just trood in a pile of shit, this is a major blunder on your part Eurogamer, sort it.

whizzedout, we only brought in our re-review system for MMOs with the launch of the MMO channel in March this year. The WOW re-review was the first we ever published.

We intend every major MMO to be re-reviewed at least once or twice a year from now on (including reviews of new expansion packs).

And it's over four months since Conan's release, not two.

That was good, I guess. Now re-review Blue Dragon please, a 5 (five) ????!

edit: I mean, now that you probably completed the game...

You just trood (sic) in a pile of shit, this is a major blunder on your part whizzedout, sort it.

*Fixed

and then re-review Dead Space, LBP and Saint's Row 2 - hahaha, those comment threads make me chuckle :D

It's only MMO's that will get re-reviewed miigs

"those comment threads make me chuckle"
That's the point, innit ?

Conan looks like he's actually played this game in that picture.

I wonder if the launch of the console version...which I imagine won't actually arrive until they are done with the Beta test...um, I mean...patches...will reenergize the game and bring more players into it?

Eurogamer is digging their own grave.
Since the new management took over, things gone shit.

Can we have the EG from ~3 years ago back, please? A time when a EU review was something to look forward to, and the scores meant something.

I thought World of Warcraft was a great game but just couldn't get into LOTR Online at all. I thought Age of Conan looked interesting but thankfully stopped at buying it because I feel there's too many of these kinds of games on the PC and there's a tendency for them all to feel the same (of the ones I've tried), only they're dressed in a different skin.

In a way MMORPGs, addictive as they are, are the worst kind of time wasters when you think about how many hundreds of hours you've spent playing them, the repetitive grinding and how many hours you've actually really honestly enjoyed it. It's the reason I can't return to World of Warcraft despite trying to earlier on this year. Life is too short and there are too many other games to spend hours and hours of my time playing MMORPGs. Loved World of Warcraft while it lasted (some six months) but it's not a genre I want to return to now.

@Darren:
What a random post!
I hear you thou. But, if I had time to play games at all, id probably take up Wow again. I kind of miss the old community.

I don't get this "ooh, MMOs - they're too addictive" thing at all.

I mean, those people who spend hours chasing Xbox Achievements or have "must-see TV" they can't miss, they're not addicted at all, are they?

@iokthemonkey:
Oh, they certainly are. But ive never seen anyone as hooked on achievements or TV as people get hooked at MMOs.
The mix of raiding times, community (and some gameplay) makes for a wonderful drug.

except tv shows have an end that isn't controlled by the consumer...

thanks for the re-review oli.

clearly no one else got it, but it makes perfect sense to me that you review an MMO, on release, with an air of needful (if it's justified) optimism (because things will change, and it's an MMO, don't you see?) for the future in your score - hence 8/10.

then you re-review and, even if the game has improved over its release state, if it's doesn't meet expectations and its initital promise then you score more harshly and realistically, hence the "lower" score.

i can see it. it makes sense to me. perhaps i'm just the only one here who's actually played an MMO. anyway, keep up the good work.

except tv shows have an end that isn't controlled by the consumer...

----

Which IMO, makes them worse - you cannot choose when to complete your viewing experience.

This isn't me rallying against the "evils" of TV, but I do find it ridiculous how these comments are levelled (heh!) against MMOs as being some kind of digital crack.

But ive never seen anyone as hooked on achievements or TV as people get hooked at MMOs.

----

I play a LOT of MMOs and have done for years, yet I get to bed on time, have a family life, hold down a job and still find time to go out to socialise. I must just be brilliant or something... ;)

@iokthemonkey:
You must be a god or something, dude.

When i played wow, I:
Didnt meet my IRL friends.
Lost a girlfriend.
Took a week of work when Burning Crusade was released.
Had horrible sleeping patterns.

Not even Heroes season1 got me that fucked.
And, this is laughable, I still loved playing the game, and wish I had time to play Wow as I write this.

I lost my girlfriend because I stopped playing WoW....

Edit: Among other reasons.

Ouch, sorry to hear that Krelle.

Might I suggest instead you try something called "crack?" It'll probably work out cheaper in the long-run.

I lost my girlfriend because I stopped playing WoW....

------

Those Night Elf ladies you watch dance in Stormwind in their underoos don't count as girlfriends!

@iokthemonkey:
Crack! Yes, its on the shopping list.

Ive got a new girlfriend, luckily. And heavy studies keep me from playing Wow = losing her aswell! God bless school.

*peeks at the Jumpgate Beta signup*

*peeks at the Jumpgate Beta signup*

-----

Yes, I noticed that too... :)

I re-subbed about a month ago and continued levelling my lvl48 barbarian.
I'd left AoC mainly because it was constanlty crashing with memory leaks and I was having trouble finding stuff to do in the 40-50 area 'Field of the Dead'.

On restarting I found lots of new content and a far more stable client, so I stuck with it and me ol' barb is now a lvl65 with some crazy fatality moves which are almost always fun. The game is better now than it was at launch that's for sure, but just how much better is a matter of debate.
Crafting is still rubbish with tier progression strictly boxed into every 10 lvls, ie- you can complete teir 1 at lvl 40, but you're then told to sod off until you hit lvl 50 before you can start learning tier 2.
Grouping (PUG) for instances is fairly easy to achieve, though you find the whole thing is merely a thump the mobs and move along affair until you get to the boss, who you also thump.

GMs are quick to resond and on the ball when they do. Funcom should be given credit for that, or perhpas it's only because there are 2 GMs for each paying player.

AoC is getting there very slowly and I'm sticking with it for now.

WHERE IS GAOL!

Haha.

Most sites reviewed it properly the first time, though. NOW i see why EG have the re-review system!

I agree with the re-review of MMO's, its not like playing a classic game etc, MMOs are evolving beasts and the more you play the more you finds things you dont like or do like. It is surprising that a MMO can lose 2 points in such short time, but then I dont know what gamers would want, a review site to play an MMO for weeks and weeks before giving a review.. not going to happen.

So Im all for it, and pretty much not going to stop playing WAR for AOC :D

So when do I get my money back Eurogamer? I bought Age of Conan alot because of your first review. But after I played the game for 5 minutes I knew it sucked. So lame Eurogamer.

"So when do I get my money back Eurogamer? I bought Age of Conan alot because of your first review. But after I played the game for 5 minutes I knew it sucked. So lame Eurogamer."


Grow and take responsibility for your own actions maybe?

EG hardly MADE you part with your money did they.

Jeez.

I've only just done Tortage. I think that was very strong, especially the single player quests. Will be seeing what it's like after lvl 20. The game can be fun but it's a bit of a button masher. It certainly doesn't feel like the step step on from WoW though. But then neither did Vanguard, which feels like a deeper game but still sucks performance wise in many areas.

I have to applaud the EG staff for having the balls and honesty to put this piece up even if I disagree on a couple of the opinions expressed.

I don't believe mmorpgs deserve a 'grace period', especially not subscription based ones. Yes, they are 'service' based, but we are paying more in month one than any other month. Yes, financially they may need to launch sooner than is ideal, but there has been too many cases of publishers recouping costs from box sales then quickly slimming down staff - Tabula Rasa, Age of Conan and Auto Assault to name a few.

If anything, the increased expenditure heightens the need for a clear roadmap and 'endgame' readiness. My opinion is that it was apparent from the outset that Funcom had left themselves too much to do. If you are waiting on a 'miracle patch' after launch it's pretty much game-over in my experience.

I'd also argue that the central AoC combat system was (and is) fundamentally incompatible with long term mmorpg play. While it might be fun for a very short while, I think it simplifies things too much to have any staying power. Basic combat systems are fine for story driven stuff like The Witcher, but if you're going to hold folks attention in an mmorpg then you need to have distinct classes, roles, weaknesses, strength, gear and so on.

The new producer has a real mountain to climb, good luck to him.

Good review.

I would not argue with either the 8/10 original review or this 6/10. AoC really was a very promising game, the melee combat system and the lack of factions was a welcome breath of fresh air. It had quite a few good ideas and I had some fun with it. I didn't find it particularly buggy either and the launch was very smooth. It was the total lack of content in the latter part of the game, the lack of pvp system and the totally broken economy which killed it. The Keep system was a big selling point and yet it was also broken.

A shame they also kept watering down the combat and spellcasting to try to appease the mainstream players, as well as wasting time on raid content. They should have made it a pvp focused game and concentrated on dominating that market in the fantasy mmo genre, especially now Guild Wars is effectively in hibernation until GW2 and WoW's pvp has burnt most people out. They tried to make a Conan does Azeroth and failed miserably in every area.

"So when do I get my compensation Eurogamer? I didn't buy Blue Dragon on release day alot because of your review. But after I played the game for 500 minutes I knew it rocked oh so much. So lame Eurogamer."

Bang that drum all you like, miiiguel, but Blue Dragon is still fucking awful :)

-----------------
A shame they also kept watering down the combat and spellcasting to try to appease the mainstream players, as well as wasting time on raid content. They should have made it a pvp focused game and concentrated on dominating that market in the fantasy mmo genre, especially now Guild Wars is effectively in hibernation until GW2 and WoW's pvp has burnt most people out.
-----------------
I agree with the second part of what you said, but I can't recall any instances of them watering down the combat. I stopped playing about 6 weeks ago, have they changed anything since then?

I have to say that while I liked the story, the writing, the setting and the way it integrated the "lore" from Howard's fiction (stuff that no other MMO does as well), the game felt a lot like an empty shell mechanics-wise. Things like a normal sword swing being able to score anything from 70 to 700 damage on a shielded side really made me feel like there was no depth to the rules and that I was playing craps rather than an RPG - this huge gap between min and max damage was even bigger with combos. The rock/paper/scissors class balance was so absolute that you needed a huge disparity in playerskill to kill someone who was your "counter" class. Granted, the game is balanced around group pvp, but with 90% of the pve content balanced for soloing, the siege system broken, and queues for minigames stretching out into infinity because there were only 4 people on your entire server in the queue, there WAS no group pvp anywhere! My server had a few guild wars going on, but eventually some of the big guilds involved fell apart after the mass exodus at the end of the inclusive 30 days.

The game still has a tactile solidity that gives it a much more satisfying feel than any other MMO (at least when you're playing a melee class), and even though deep down I know it's just surface gloss and there isn't any deep underlying rules mechanics I'd be tempted to take it up again if I wasn't pessimistic about whether the end-game pvp content is working yet. If there was some fun sieging going on then I'd go for it, but my guess is that even if they've fixed it the server populations won't support it.

I have my ideas of what went wrong with it (apart from the premature launch) but they mostly involve features which had been cut from the game months before launch, and I doubt they'll resurrect them now.

"the game is best summed up as disappointing. It still has potential and even flair, but for all that it could be, it's failing to live up even to what it should be."

So true

Does really force you to ask why MMOG's alone get reviewed on potential.

So bored of these games coming out and day one customers are effectively extended beta testers.

It seems to be going down the same route as Anarchy Online in that it's had a terrible start but still (hopefully) has the potential to be a slow burner and hold a dedicated fan base over time. I guess this isn't what they had in mind but I expect it to be successful over time, in a moderate sort of way. I'll look back in 12 months.

Apart from the insane install size and crappy crafting, what annoyed me most with AoC was Funcom's old habits of over-promising. The never-present DX10 support (for promising that, it must hurt that LotRO already got DX10 support), the absent XBox 360 port (but since I do not have one it's more because of the principle) - DC Online, Champions Online and The Agency will all be out before the Funcom's console version.

Oh, and the "realistic" graphics and "physics-based" gameplay is rendered moot when the game is full of static animation sequences and unrealistic transitions, like the "instant transportation" to and from climbing mode.

The combat "innovation" just consists of turning off auto-attack, introducing damage cones for three basic attacks and using "QTE" sequences as triggers for abilities. You still have the same aspects like facing and queueable abilities (including for the QTE sequence) like every other MMO out there, but they appear to have left out the "triggered"/status activated abilities like WoW and LotRO is full of and which make combat more interesting.

Ah, I wish I had kept a link to that Anarcy Online interview which talked about underwater cities and large-scale Omnitek versus Clan battles... Funcom over-promising from day one. Warhammer Online is so much better a MMO than AoC can hope to become, now, anyway, especially for PvP but also explorer-type PvE due to the tome unlocks.

The combat "innovation" just consists of turning off auto-attack, introducing damage cones for three basic attacks and using "QTE" sequences as triggers for abilities.

----

Which is the same way City of Heroes has handled its combat for years...