Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures Comments by Rob Fahey

I got a Rhino and the code wont work for me.

Pisser. I know there were some issues with play.com and some others having a bum set of serials, I think FunCom have resolved that now though. For my Mammoth I registered the serial on the web based account portal, and then redeemed it in game. A bit fiddly, but it did at least work for me.

Not an issue for you now anyway, Benno, as the free month is over in a few days and I presume you're not carrying on?

Ermm, well I will have another bash at the code now and see if it works.

I am off to a festival in belgium next week and then a tour round europe for a bit so theres not much point in me continuing my sub at the minute. I will definitely be returning in the future though, this game has mega potential and is about 80% on the way to achieving it.

Nah its not working still.

I have played over 20 MMOS over the years and I was looking for something which offered something different. I still play SWG (yes I know its crap but its Star Wars) but I tried WOW and LOTR and yes they are good games in their own right but I think sometimes they are taken a little too seriously. The AOC community is amongst the most friendly I have come across and yes there are kids who play it but not as many as the others and it shows.
The game has its querks and isn't perfect by a long way but it is the only game that is going to make me move from SWG. I hope you give it a try because it is a lot of fun. A fantastic and rich world based on some great source material. Thoroughly recommend.

Bahh this game is awsome in my oppinion ....9/10

Regards 70 Barbarian

Nice rewiev btw....agree with your conclution and observations

Might be worth dropping Funcom and email then, Benno.

Also you may just have to be a bit patient - it was a couple of hours after I registered the code before I could redeem it in game. Unless it won't accept the code at all in which case, yeah, you're buggered. ;)

Wtf is happening to EG? 8/10 for a bugridden piece of shit? Perhaps in 6 months to a year, when FC decides to wisen up and crank out code and patches.

Time to find a new gaming website. The only thing that still holds up EG is the fact some of you play EVE. :)

It's a fair review, technically I'd give it a 7 as things stand, but an 8 given the frequency of patching and the level of improvement each week I can't argue with.

Unfinished and no massive leap forward, but enjoyable and with some nice features and potential.

If some of you feel the review was to good, go to gamerankings.com and check the average so far : Link is :

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/9...

The average now after 19 reviews is 83/100.

Highest rating is 94/100 and lowest is

70/100.

I take it many of the negative rants are from :

a) People with olders computers that struggle hard running the game even on low.
b) People from other copetitors scared shitless about guilds falling apart because people are leaving for AOC.
c) People doing viral marketing for the competition.

I can't really see any other reasons than the ones mentioned above for going "bananas" over a GAME getting a higher mark than some feel it deserves.

If you like it keep playing and have fun, if you hate it don't subcribe and go back to whatever you where playing/doing before AOC's releace...

Only way to find out if this game is for you or not is to check it out for a month or two.......

Simen.

a) I have a cutting edge rig.

b) My mates are currently playing AoC, with me.

c) I do not work in advertising, above or below board. If anything, as a norwegian, I would like to see AoC do well.

As I wrote about AoC earlier:

AoC has many faults atm, some which can be rectified over time.

But there is one thing that I am very uncertain about, and this is it's much vaunted fresh take on MMORPG fighting - it's realtime-combat.

After about 3 months now (closed beta tester) TRYING to like, and use smartly, and grow accustomed to these active moves when fighting, I am about to give up.

It just does not work. I mean, it works, but that's because the quests and the general fighting usually degenerates into a mass of flailing arms and weapons, with little or no skill involved, and no gauge to give any indication as to whether you're doing well.

-> New comment: You just either die or live.

The much flaunted graphic gore with decapitations and the like, are not consistently reproducable after certain combos, and therefore leaves the gamer with an even greater feeling of disaffection. It's just so random!

-> New comment: There is just as much dice rolling going on behind the scenes here as well, making the "real-time" combat redundant really.

So I have no idea whether I'm playing well. Combos do not produce effects with certainty, and quests and mobs are droll and without depth.

And don't get me started on the puerile "sexiness"'!

I am certainly leaving before my free month is up, and really not sure if anything can persuade me to come back.

-> New comment: I have let my subscription lapse now, and unlike others, given my view that the game has a built-in flaw in it's combat system, I really don't know if I'll be coming back.

So, Simen, people have free minds (mostly) and make them up independently, and sometimes you will get to hear opinions that grate with your own. AoC is new, many want it to be good, many have possibly invested large sums in new PC gear to get it to run decently, and then the "have to" like it, cos if not, they're the ones that end up with the shit-end of the bargain, and a stupid look on their face.

Is that how you feel now?

I am positing that many of you are in that situation atm. In denial, that is. Because Conan is NOT IN ANY WAY, a good game, a game that requires skill, that rewards skill, that in the end, feels like a world - at the time being, and I don't think it ever will be.

And therefore Mr. Rob Fahey's 8/10 seems way off to us salty, cynical sorts. I smell some Eidos ties, desperation, fiscal year must-hit-targets somewhere in the background here.. Shame.

Its an 8/10 game, just accept it.

See, I have no issue with people saying they don't like the game. We're all different. But I'm really really confused by people that say it's an intrinsically "bad" or "shit" game, when that patently isn't the case. And I'm even more confused by people like SleepyMagpie that hate it.... and yet played it for three months?! I just can't see it - why persist so long with something you don't like? Madness.

For my part, I've stuck maybe 30 hours into it so far (which is practically fuck all in MMO terms, admittedly) and I'm still enjoying it. The review averages suggest a lot of other people are enjoying it, too. I doubt I'll play it for the three years I played World of Warcraft for, but that doesn't matter. It's not a competition. :)

It's a game. It's for entertainment. And it entertains me, very well in fact.

"But I'm really really confused by people that say it's an intrinsically "bad" or "shit" game, when that patently isn't the case"

It is patently shit for the reasons I gave last page.

I am absolutely the first to always say 'different tastes, different opinions, each to their own'.

Except with Age of Conan, it is utterly awful in almost every respect; and the fact that it is getting decent press means we will continue to get mmorpgs which are half finished, poorly designed cash-ins. This genre will never move forward until games like AoC are called out for the mess they are.

Dear oh dear! I don't do MMOs but the high post count had me interested. What do I find? yet more "i feel different about this game so your review is wrong" crap. Rob gave this 8/10 he's is neither wrong or right it's just his opinion. You may agree you may not big deal. Why do people need some sort of validation by reviewers agreeing with their own personal view. You don't look clever by doing it and look like a bunch of whiners. Reviews are not purchase validations anyway, just one person telling you what THEY think of the game. Besides if you base you purchases on what someone else says you need you head examined.

We've already had MGS4 mentioned, surely someone will throw in the H3 10/10 that MS "paid" EG for. Of course we all know comparing review scores of different games in different genres makes you look clever :)

Sorry for the rant but is it me or is there more of this review comparing/complaining/whining, EG is biased and EG is taking cash rubbish lately on reviews?

Phattso: I played it for 3 months because when you betatest, you devote some time to providing feedback, bug hunting, and generally trying to get the game in shape, along with the devs. I am sad to say they didn't listen to what many said about the combat system (you should have seen it early on!), and also, development took longer than economically feasible, so in the end they had to release before the game was really finished.

Benno: Clearly, in Eurogamer it's an 8/10 game, but that's just the problem, something smells fishy, and I don't like it.

Also - the "different strokes for different folks" adage is one I am also a follower of, for example, I wouldn't touch WoW with a ten-foot pole today myself, but I will still admit that it is a very well made game, and sure to entertain most MMORPG'ers.

AoC, as Gaol has been putting it, is in completely different straits, and if we continue to sanction these derelicts with good scores, be it for shady economic reasons or otherwise, the whole MMORPG community will end up as shipwrecks.

Cheery wave from stranded youngsters.. indeed.

bad09: Go and watch footie on the box maybe, and leave us to our whining?

As I say, don't dispute anyone's right to hate the game for any reason. I just look at my (almost entirely positive) experience with the game, and truly wonder how anybody could be having the exact opposite experience. :)

I read your comments, Gaol, and I think I could only agree with about a third of them and even then not to anywhere near the extent you felt them to be vastly negative.

I think it all stems from the combat in this game: if you don't like that, everything is going to be awful because it underpins the entire game. Thankfully I really, really enjoy the combat. You can call it "broken" or a "gimmick" or "absolutely shit" and I would just have to disagree with you.

At least the discussion has remained more or less civil in these comments. We can disagree, but no instant descent into shitslinging is great to see.

With the exception of those that think there's an EG review score conspiracy. I think you're all batshit crazy. ;-)

Batshit crazy, eh Phattso? Well, those who are content with the status quo generally label naysayers that way until a different issue important to you comes up and bites you on your own arse.

Here's what Oli Welsh wrote in the closing paragraph of his preview of AoC for some weeks ago:

"We'll offer a full review in the coming weeks - before your 30 days' free play are up and you need to decide whether to subscribe, if you buy now. If we had to predict the score, we'd say it's a 7, but that could vary either way depending on how certain things shape up - notably, the endgame, crafting, and PVP. The next couple of months are still make-or-break for Age of Conan, but by pulling such a professional launch out of the bag, Funcom has given its baby the best chance of success."

Whole article here: http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?art...

Notably, the endgame, crafting, and PvP are barely touched upon in Rob Fahey's review, and are listed by Oli Welsh as critical to AoC's score.

These areas mentioned by Welsh in his pre-review are in bad shape, and this is mirrored by forums across the net.

A consequence of Welsh reviewing the game then, might have been seeing AoC fall beneath the original tentative 7/10 to perhaps a 6 or even a 5.

Who took Oli Welsh off this job, and why?

Yep - absolutely batshit. :)

It's just opinions. If I reviewed it I'd give it a seven. If a Conan nut reviewed it, they'd give it a ten. If you reviewed it, you'd expose the International Mediocrity Conspiracy for what it was and presumably give it zero. Them's the breaks. There's a million good reasons for Oli to not have done the review - you're making the assumption that he was ever in line for it, of course.

But the bottom line is, I just don't think Conan is a shit game. Nothing is going to bite me in the arse, at all. I've been gaming for the better part of twenty years now, and this kind of shit has been bandied about since the heydays of the print magazines.

And lo! Despite people liike yourself proclaiming that we're ushering in an era of doom and mediocre shitty games: I look along my games collection and see nothing but classics.

I'm sure gaming will survive an EG 8/10 for Conan. A game that I actually really enjoy. :)

Well, keep sucking on that blue pill man! You seem to be enjoying it!

This never happened either, anyone remember Jeff Gerstmann and the Eidos case:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/1...

And of course, there has been no consolidation in the industry over the years, and we have just as many developers now as earlier, with just as many unique ideas..

It's a wonder you can get any gaming in at all with that rain cloud following you about. ;)

Do I think there are some shady deals being done? I'd be stunned if there weren't, at least on some level. Do I really think that it has a massive and permanent effect on the industry? Not in the slightest. The fact is, the public buy whatever they're told to - in sales terms (and therefore what gets made the most) quality isn't even an issue (/glares at WiiPlay). Sad, but true. Just look at the top sellers in every year since the 80s.

And yet, despite all this, the last few years has seen the release of some of the best games in videogames history. And the next few years promise more of the same.

And if you _truly_ can't see why the games development industry has undergone consolidation, then there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. But it's what I do for a living, and it seems pretty straightforward to me. :)

Sleepymagpie : Oli Welsh used an old computer when previewing the game. He had all settings on low. His entire preview was coloured by the experience of playing with an old rig. He would have had looooong load times and and crappy framerate.

That whole preview was bogus because of that part alone....

I have no problem with people not liking the game, but going all negative without anything positive to say about a game currently at 83/100 at gamerankings....seem abit strange to me.

You don't like the combat fine, move along to a game with a combat style you like. There are plenty of people around haveing a ball with this combat system. Are you mad at them for enjoying what you don't

And no the end game hasn't really been touched in any reviews yet. It takes time getting enough players up to level 80, then the endgame can begin for real.

In the meantime Funcom will continue to add content and pach it together.
Having everything in an MMO working from day one is impossible. They need time watching how the players interact with the game.

A MMO is a living breathing beast in constant motion forwards ( or in SWG case backwards lol) It will never be a finished game but evole overtime into either a sucessfull one like WOW or a unsucessfull one like Vanguard.

Which path AOC will take is way to early to tell, but a lot of games have been sold, patches are comeing fast and it's only one frikkin' month old. Most players aren't powergamers and seem to be happy.Things are actually looking rather good for AOC.

BY the time the majority reach level 80 most bugs will have been fixed and the real end game will begin.

I guess patience is a virtue some eager power gaming (10 hours a day) MMO players don't have ;-)

Oli is the EG MMO guru. We all love Rob but in a different and more gentle way.

This is one of the few proper (don't talk to me about TR) MMO releases this year, so why isn't Oli reviewing it?

They have fixed the stat bug already, check out http://www.mmorpgrant.com for the patch notes

A lot of the reviews are giving it decent scores because it functions in a basic 'Titan Quest' kind of fashion, except a lot less fun and polished. However, as an mmorpg it gets away with blue murder.

The 'naysayers' will be proved right, in a few months the sub based will be reduced to a hardcore few, unless Funcom start working miracles. This game has none of the depth of many other mmorpgs, and can't justify a premium monthly fee.

I seriously recommend people try Guild Wars, another heavily instanced game, but with higher production values, finely tuned combat, and it does it all for free after you've bought the game.

Actually, Gaol, I'd agree with that statement. I'm certainly enjoying the game more in a Diablo/TQ context than MMORPG. But then I was always a casual MMORPG player anyway (the whole "alone together" thing) so it suits me down to the ground. Reading the reviews, that also seems to be the subtext.

But Guild Wars? I bought it, and one or two of the expansions, and it bored me to tears.

Until the end game content is dropped into AoC, it would probably be wise to approach it more like Hellgate: London. That had a spike of subscribers for a while, and then tailed off to nothing. AoC should be different, though, as there's the Guild PVP Siege stuff when the finally get it on its feet, and the inevitable instanced endgame updates.

Time will tell for sure, but I'm one of the lucky few who take an age (pun intended) to reach the level cap, so none of it will affect me. ;)

This isn't just a high review from eurogamer, almost all reviews in the gaming media have placed it between 7-9/10. I dont know why some people fight it so much, I think its the best MMO to come out since World of Warcraft.

Combat isn't broken, melee combat is brilliant. Auto attack in wow feels rubbish now.

I'm not going to get sucked into the discussion here - a bit pointless given the entrenched viewpoints that are so apparent with some of our more, er, prolific posters on this thread - except to point out two things.

Firstly, I understand that some people may have stability issues with the game, and I did at the outset as well - but this review was designed as a snapshot of the game as it stood last week, and I deliberately didn't kick it over bugs that are already fixed. I've got AoC running on two very different systems (albeit both high-spec and running Vista 64), and haven't experienced a single problem with stability in the client for about a week and a half. Problems in the forums also seem to have quieted down massively in that time. I don't judge stability / crash-bugs to be a major problem at this time.

Secondly, I'm amused by the idea that some grand conspiracy existed to "take Oli off the job". Oli is the editor of Eurogamer's MMO section, and it was he who commissioned me to write the AoC review - that happened several months ago, and I've been playing in the late beta and the final game ever since for this purpose. Nobody was taken off anything, and there are no suspect men smoking cigarettes in and prowling the alleyways around Eurogamer Towers :) *




* This isn't strictly true, but EG Towers are in Brighton so the suspect men are there for an entirely different reason.

Your simplistic attempt to divert attention away from the obvious conspiracy is doomed to failure. You might as well just come clean! ;-)

Shinji:
You should read, and comment on, Gaols long post of faults with Conan. Respect your way if can bother with that.
What I experienced of the game is the exact same as Gaol, and I cannot see how a game can ever get 8/10 with such obvious flaws.
I wont ask you to "defend" your review/score (great review btw), but if you saw none of the faults Gaol pointed out, Im afraid youve played different games.

Related to Kotaku-Fahey btw?

I confess that I've been skipping his posts - the belligerent, arrogant tone of the opening paragraphs is enough to render them tl;dr - but I'll read them when I get back home. I'm away on holiday this weekend and not keen on extending my "sorry, just checking my email quickly!" time to include that.

There are definitely valid criticisms to be levelled at the game, and I think if you're a power-leveller who's going to make your way to 80 within the first two months, they're probably very strong criticisms, but for the vast majority of gamers I think the positives outweigh the negatives right now. To put it in context, though, I don't have any doubt in my mind that WoW is a 10/10 game right now, so Conan still has a mountain to climb. If the bulk of the player population starts hitting 80 and things are still unfinished in that part of the game, then our next look at Conan in a few months' time could well be a lot more negative.

Anyway - I'll read and respond more thoroughly early next week, but not on mobile internet from my holiday :)

Thanks to Shinji for coming on comments and speaking in this case, the vervremdung just got a bit lighter.

I really don't think large-scale shady deals were made in this case. But given the preview Oli made, his points listed upon which AoC would be judged in the review, and then having good old Shinji-san review it; in the slightly teddy-bear fashion he seems to review western-rpg's - well, things seemed a bit off.

This is not coming from a "played WoW for a year, I'm sixteen this summer" newcomer to MMORPGs. I've played them heavily since 1997. Almost all of them.

And in my mind, even if Age of Conan has some fine points - the basic core experience, and the mechanics that will propel or hinder future rewarding gameplay - is broken. And Oli Welsh seemed to suggest that he saw this as well, in his preview.

Why did Oli take himself off the case, then?! LOL.

I have played many MMORPGs as I have stated. It is VERY EASY to get caught up in the novelty of things, and also a general wanting in the community to see it all prosper. And then again, some people have made considerable investments in gear and such to get it on.

So there are definitely some who "like it so much, really, great stuff!".

And then they hate it 1 month later.

Anyhoo - as Jon Stewart would say, Gaol raises a good point in suggesting people try out Guild Wars.

GW is a great diablo-like semi-RPG, that is very instanced, but works due to the arcade mechanics and gameplay. Guild Wars never pretended to be a deep, rich MMORPG. Conan does.

But it isn't. Wonder if it ever will. I hope for your sakes, but I doubt that many of you will be around to see the change through if it comes.

Have a good sunday, play good games that you like (and that could well be AoC in your mind, it's called freedom), and we'll see what happens. Cheers.

Very cool, Shinji. Kudos.
Enjoy your holiday!

Guild wars is a bit pants really.

"the belligerent, arrogant tone of the opening paragraphs is enough to render them tl;dr "

My posts in the first page certainly fall into this a bit, I usually post short sharp trashy stuff while catching a break at work, mainly for kicks. Three cheers for internet anonymity.

But I put some reasonable amount of thought into the points on the second page, and I sincerely believe that they put the launch of AoC on a par with the NGE revision of Star Wars Galaxies. The lights are on but nobodys home. Certainly the criticisms don't simply apply to power gamers or the 'endgame' - they are fundamental issues that make AoC totally unworthy of its £10pm subscription model. I should have really put a proper 'reader review' together for submission, but that's a lot more time consuming than bullet points on a comments thread - as I'm sure you know too well.

Gaol, what is your agenda here?

Are you on a personal crusade to discredit AOC?
Do you want the game to fail and if so why?
Are you making a stand for MMO gamers around the world with a mighty cause of : "from now on no MMO should ever be released without beeing flawless from day one as a polished masterpiece"

Do you believe Funcom has treated you poorly as a consumer?

I just don't get it.

I take it if you have played the game as much as you say you have, you have gotten your moneys worth and then some already in entertainment value. Especially compeared to single player games at the same price that are over and finished in 10 hours.

Oh and on a side note. Gametrailers.com also reviewed AOC a coupple of days ago....and the score....85/100.

Seems like you are a bit on the negative side compeared to most.

If the game turned out not beeing your cup of tea, why not move on and find a game you like?

It's not personal to Funcom, they are just the latest culprits. I am frustrated at the long line of piss poor mmorpgs being foisted upon us and the easy ride they are getting by a videogames press that doesn't seem to know how review them. The 85/100 you quote is pretty much my motivation.

Tabula Rasa also garnered an 8/10 on EG. Although better than AoC, it was still deeply flawed in many respects. It's deserted now and running on life support - AoC will be no different, for the reasons I have mentioned (and then some).

I'm pretty relaxed about this, if my tone makes you think I am frothing at the mouth and venting, think again!

I actually agree with some of the comments here. I'm getting very disenfranchised with game reviews as a whole, as they seem to be stand-alone gut-feeling scores.

Yes, different reviewers will have different experiences (no matter what product they are reviewing), but at least hardware reviews are honest in that they compare products with each other.

If you hold up MGS4 and AoC next to each other, MGS4 is far superior in terms of total product, polish etc. Yet they get the same 'score'.

This isn't an attack on EG, its an attack on every reviewer. Do some damned comparisons before you spout out a random score. If you give Bioshock 10/10, then you'd better damned well ensure you also gave Half-Life a 10/10. And vice-versa.

lsimenl: rather, what is your agenda? Atleast Gaol and a few others bring up some relevant issues about the game.
What do you do?
From my neutral pow, it looks more like you are the one "in love with the game" and when someone points out a flaw, a voice in your head says "hey, simen, maybe he's right. Maybe your not having as much fun as you think!" Scary thought that, ne?

My own agenda? To troll.

Thanks to Rob for clearing up the issue of how he came to do the review. I feel I need to add my reasons here.

The point of the MMO channel is that we offer continuing, month-in-month-out coverage of the biggest games, including re-reviews. The best way to do this is to assign one writer to each game who will then have the time to "go deep" with it. Expecting Age of Conan to be a major game, I lined Rob up to be our Hyborian correspondent, as it were, my plate being full enough with World of Warcraft and whatever betas and smaller games are kicking around. Having decided to do that, I felt it was best to let him kick off his Conan coverage with the first official review, for reasons of consistency.

Yes, Rob's view is slightly more positive than in my "pre-review", but he's played the game for longer than I have, so I defer to his judgement. Although I do have to warn you that it's possible that we have slightly different opinions! Eurogamer isn't a hive mind.

As for comparing the score with Metal Gear Solid's, these are not comparable games in any way. Each was reviewed in its own context and on its own merits. MMOs in particular can not be scored in the same way that you can score a boxed console game.

One more point, I did not play the game on an "old" PC - it's a brand new XPS laptop, but being a laptop, it's not quite up to speed with a proper gaming rig. It's probably very representative of the average player's machine. I played on medium-ish settings designed to optimise my framerate, and the game was reasonably pretty and very playable, just not pretty enough for screenshots is all.

For those saying "check gamerankings/metacritic" - do note that the top five or so reviews are COMPLETE TRASH and have basically reviewed Tortage.

7/10 game at best.

Oli:
"As for comparing the score with Metal Gear Solid's, these are not comparable games in any way. Each was reviewed in its own context and on its own merits. MMOs in particular can not be scored in the same way that you can score a boxed console game. "

What you say here is generally that MMOs get away with murder (ie, the obvious flaws).
Of course you cant compare two games of different genres side by side, but there just has got to be a red line when it comes to scoring that everyone follows (atleast on EG, cant expect the whole world to fall in line just yet).

Im not the least upset about the MGS4 score. I see where it comes from even thou I dont really agree.
But Conan an 8? In its current state? Its just..off.

Is my reasoning total bollocks to you two, Rob, Oli? Maybe im the one "not getting it"? I dont know, honestly.

I don't want to slag the game off, because it has potential, but it is obvious this game wasn't ready for release. I for one canceled my subscription. Tortage is very well done, but what comes after is really disappointing. The score is very lol to say the least. I regret spending the money on the game when I could have spent it on something more enjoyable, like sushi.

Oli, it was this comment you made in the comment section of your preview of the game that made me believe that you had been playing on an old pc. That and the fact that you said you had long loading times in the preview text.

Quote Oli : "Darkedge, if I had a better PC I would, but I don't think it's fair to the game to show it on low quality with half the effects turned off. That's no more indicative of what players will see than those official shots."

Krelle, as for my agenda, i have only one. I'm tired of people going all out because they don't agree with a review making it a personal goal to turn people away from a product.

Now if AOC had gotten piss poor reviews all over the net, i could understand it. But when the majority of reviewers consider the game to be a bit over 8/10, then maybe it's actually quite good but not some players cup of tea?
Do you believe that the small developer Funcom has "bought" favourable reviews all over the net?

Maybe some ranters are doing viral marketing for compeating companies?
Maybe some ranters have lost guildies in other games and try hard not to lose more?
MMO's create very strong emotions in some people

If you don't like the game why not stop playing and move on? Why the need to write page after page about how crappy it is?

That last part is what i don't get, and why a write what i write.....
AOC has bugs and flaws, but based upon all reviews, the positives outweight the negatives. And as we all know MMO's usually just get better and more polished over time.

(One exeption that comes to mind : SWG ,it went from awsome PRE - CU , to trash with the CU and later NGE....)

Krelle - as Rob's review says, while Conan wasn't quite ready for launch, is was at least as ready (if not more so) than the majority of MMOs are. The core of the experience was in place and very enjoyable on day one, which is more than can be said for the likes of Vanguard.

Lest we forget, WOW launched with no organised PVP at all - no battlegrounds! can you imagine? - and whilst it was relatively bug-free, the servers couldn't cope with demand and were suffering constant unannounced downtime (something else Funcom has mostly managed to avoid). Should it have been given a 7 for that? Of course not.

No, I don't think MMOs should get away with murder, and I do think launches in general need to be improved. But at the same time some allowances need to be made - publicly damning a promising game like Conan at launch won't help it get better at all. The opposite in fact.

1simen1, if the load times are long with a 7200rpm laptop drive and 4GB of RAM, then the load times are just long. Like I said, my comments were about screenshot quality - draw distance especially - the game is perfectly playable on my machine.

Oli, thanks for clearing that up:-)

You're still basically admitting you guys reviewed it on the potential it has Oli. The fact is, right here right now, the game doesn't deserve an 8 from Eurogamer (nor Edge, or any other reputable - perhaps more "hard line" outlets).

There's plenty that will get better; the fast majority of it in fact. Six months, twelve months, who knows? It's a diamond in the rough as Rob puts it, a 7/10 game that could easily be 9/10 with time.

Basically AoC is not broken, it's just very boring visually and thematically and there is a real sense of disconnection from both the community and the actual combat.

This is not something that is likely to be addressed in patches without changing the game so much that it is unrecognisable from it's current state, and in it's current state all the fundamentals that make an MMO worthwhile are simply not good enough.

People may be desperate to cling to another MMO in some vain hope of breaking WoW addiction, but anyone claiming AoC is an equal or better MMO is very very deluded, or in denial.