I love how the negative-ish reviews we have seen so far are not on the list.

Some of the statements I read while looking through the list just seemed plain false to me, but each to their own of course. Everyone's got different tastes.

There is a ton of things in life that I approach with a neutral perspective, I really do try to lay aside my prejudice on a lot of things. I was taught to do this in school. That being said...I avoid free to play games like it is the black plague. I've been completely unimpressed far too many times by those type of games. Just crap normally.. :-/

Your whole retort was invalid after stating uo is the best. Runescape gives more action then uo did... lol

I have seen the evolution of the genre just as you, from a steady roll to a stall with wow. I think we might be over the hump and hopefully things will change.

Me too.

One good trick to telling if a movie is going to svck is to see if the entire trailer is just a list of people who comment on the movie. If you hear the words "X calls it a triumph" or "X raves" then the movie is pretty much going to svck.

If the Eurogamer review is any indication some of those reviews may just be pretty well balanced.

So why was so many of the first batch negative? No majority was pretty fair or was nitpicking. But it was many who was very negative, many who also did not understand the game at all.

As in do your homework this is not Skyrim 2 its an MMO set in the elder scroll universe.

You don't set someone who hate soccer to review FIFA 2014. Target audience is players who like soccer.

Yes you can do it but then you mark the review "an soccer hater play FIFA 2014".

Most AAA games today tend to be decent or better. quality control tend to stop most turkeys.

Have a feeling many of the zero day reviews was fast to the press and be controversial for maximum clicks.

And yes the official site only pick the good ones, even the fair MMORPG good and bad from ESO is not listed, the main bad was to cloth like heavy armor.

And some of the people on the other side are even more predictable:

If it is a bad review: "This reviewer does not know what he is talking about"

If it is a good review: "Finally, someone speaks the truth about this great game"

lol

it works both ways..

Please lay off the personal insults in this thread. Don't agree with someone? That's fine but do not insult them. Should such continue the thread will be closed for discussion and every one who flames another's opinion will be warned and have short suspensions. Read our rules please before posting further in this thread.

This has been discussed in details in another tread, in short people who don't have 5 minutes attention span will have serious issues in an MMO where you will find yourself in an 5 minute wait for an campaign or dungeon.

Its also an matter of taste I liked coldharbor and it was just a few minutes unless you had to loot all the chests.

Yes it could have been done better, Skyrim had an better start. I personally don't like the single hero story line in an MMO, you are obviously one of many anyway so better adjust the story after it.

You are not only hero and it says so here:

The Elder Scrolls Online - Announcement Trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6m9-Dret0U

Yes minor sites like CNet, Gamesradar, IGN, Eurogamer.

Guys with an Youtube channel want clicks, angry video game nerd is not an objective reviewer of old video games but he is very popular.

Ok, might be just the feeling and yes I rushed, did not know I would get more than an weekend.

Yep this. Those on that list are the major ones.

I don't blame ZOS one bit for not posting reviews done by those that are ignorant, biased and didn't give the game a fair chance.

I applaud them for putting together a collection of positive reviews from reputable sources. Why in the world would they post negative reviews on their own website? Can you name one successful business that does that?

Obviously there are more positive reviews than negative, but the negative ones are easier to find and the first to pop up on a google search because they were more popular at the time. There were so many people just waiting for an opportunity to say "see, I told you so."

The negative reviews do not even bother me any more. This collection made me dig a little deeper until I came to realize that an overwhelming majority of the press reviews are positive.

Beta testers are crawling out of the wood work in droves to defend the game.

And whats more impressive is that they are doing it under the confines of the NDA.

This game is going to be a freaking smash hit. It will not make everyone happy. Nothing will. Such a task is impossible. But it is going to supply years of entertainment to millions of people.

And it will not go F2P. This is a AAA rock star baby. The numbers will not lie.

Well they are a business. They're going to put their best foot forward.

Personally I put a lot of stock in major gaming sites like IGN and Eurogamer. That's based on many years of experience of reading their views, buying games and seeing first hand how accurate the reviews were.

If they're saying good things about a game then I tend to believe them. Both are on the list.

Many of the reviews I've seen have been pure fluff. The criticims seem to be "x feature from single-player TES game that I liked is missing so it svcks" rather than an impartial evaluation of the game.