We’re doing our Warhammer review a bit differently (and it’ll be out next week). We’ve got two people reviewing it, myself and another person. We’re going to write our review based on what we’ve played so far….and then do monthly followups. MMOs are almost impossible to fully review simply because of the amount of content available, and the fact that they NEVER END.

Thankfully, Mythic was nice enough to give us press accounts, so that we don’t have to put money into it (which can limit what we’re able to do, honestly, being freelance and not paid journalists), so we’re willing to keep the writing up. But I think this may be the best way to do MMO reviews: On a rolling basis. Obviously, the scores don’t change after the initial review, but if you’re doing monthly articles, people can see if the game starts to tank.

The most honest review of any game in any genre I believe is Zero Punctuation.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation

If you get over his language and crudeness, he actually takes games to their final level and describes the end game play. This is why he rarely reviews games pre-release. He likes the full copies of games so that he can play them to the end and comment on them correctly. To me he is a true gamer because he actually takes the time to play the games.

I still agree with Sonya, in that it’s next to impossible to review end-game play without actually playing it.

It is far too easy to review a game while isolated from the hundreds of kiddies, d00ds, and gank-squads with whom you will be required to play (these, took, may influence the overall fun factor). How many reviewers actually review the game playing community along with the game itself? Or submit a more thorough follow up review six months after release? Screenshots of graphics and user interfaces, and explanations of combat mechanics can only provide reference to a small portion of the game. At pre-release, I’m sure we can all agree that, reviewing the community is near impossible unless the game caters to an extreme niche, and even then assumptions must be made.

On the other hand, I believe what Sanya is trying to unsuccessfully argue for is the need for some standard of playability by which the reader may judge a game without actually having to experience it firsthand. But therein lies the rub. How do you generically describe a learning curve applicable for a broad swath of game playing population? If it took Player A only a few hours to reach level 20, how long will it take Player B? That, of course, depends on the differences between the two players: their time commitment, their attention to clues/mechanics, and their goals.

Since my days in Everquest, I have an extremely low tolerance for bad game design and wasted time. To make certain I never suffer through another game clearly designed by people that actively hate their players, I created the following rule:

If I walk/run/do nothing for 10 minutes in a row in a game, I uninstall it and throw it away. Period. No second chances.

Naturally, I don’t want to buy games that are going to head straight for the bin, so I tend to wait before buying, and take in a number of reviews. If perusing regurgitated press releases is the only way to get the information, I’ll take it.

Direct, actual experience trumps reviews every time. People should stop overestimating the credibility of reviews and what they bring to the table,a nd that includes companies. Reviews are just opinions, is all, but you’re the one making the choice about whether or not to believe it or see it for yourself, and I tend to take up the latter.