Our good friends at EuroGamer strike again.
Read the comments over at Lum’s site for a link to the original review that was pulled down, along with some good points, like complaining about the lack of a level cap increase while also complaining that the AA system (that uses XP to increase) adds too much complexity to playing a character.
I also like how EG again tries to save face by claiming that while the review was actually fine, they pulled it because they want to buff it up to that oh-so-high EG standard. To quote the site:
We believe the review provided an accurate and reasonable account of the game in its present state, but on further investigation we are still not completely satisfied that it meets the standards expected of MMO reviews.
I guess it must be in the water over there. The review was accurate and a reasonable account of the game, but somehow that is not the expected standard for an MMO review? Well, we certainly know it’s not the standard over at EG.
Hardcore Casual 
Besides some tortured prose and a word count that ballooned to twice of what it should, the review read like an intelligent, critical appraisal of the expansion. The copied version I read didn’t have the original score appended but the tone of the review indicated something “Average” on whatever point scale EG uses.
Also, the author’s point about the AA system was not that it introduced complexity but that the abilities it offered weren’t meaningful given their actual or perceived redundancy.
The only reason I could see for EG taking this down was that the author states at the end that he played the expansion for review on beta servers. Those who review other types of games often review less than retail builds but I can certainly appreciate the decision to only review the release environment, if not for bugs then for the community as well.
Reviews a day after a launch should be taken with a grain of salt. I didn’t read the review so I can’t comment on what it said, but I don’t believe EG to be the most creditable review sites.
Eurogamer’s review was posted the day before the launch. So in this case, the review is probably so salted its been preserved.
How is he supposed to review it post launch? The game has been down for 22 hours a day since launch…
Smith played the beta. It’s a matter of opinion if that’s acceptable.
According to this thread on the Age of Conan forum, the Eurogamer score was 6/10.
http://forums-eu.ageofconan.com/showthread.php?t=148828
What’s the Age of Conan score for Eurogamer reviews /10?
Here is a handy Age of Conan conversion chart:
10/10: Premiere tickets to “Conan: the Musical” (off-Broadway).
9/10: A strong verbal rebuke from King Conan. Consider yourself lucky.
8/10: Held prisoner in Tarantia for ransom.
7/10: Held prisoner for ransom, plus vigorous beatings.
6/10: Amputation of a member (victim’s choice).
5/10: Amputation of *that* member.
4/10: All of the above, and torture until death.
3/10: A more humane death: decapitation (and they keep the skull to drink from).
2/10: Decapitation as above, plus the forcibly obtained lamentations of your woman.
1/10: Decapitation, lamentations of your woman, then they bury you and smash the headstone, just for kicks. And, as if that weren’t enough, they chase down your siblings, children, and any colleague who could avenge you and send them to a distant salt mine: They need the salt for your fields.
0/10: You don’t want to know.
no, not the salting!
Ha ha, that’s brilliant!
This one time, I read a story, and it said stuff.