Worlds Most Accurate Darkfall Review. He is referring to a fine piece of game journalism, a review of Darkfall conducted by a contributing writer (one Ed Zitron) and fully supported by the editorial staff at Eurogamer. It's a pretty full-on assassination piece. Zitron spends the whole review completely ripping Darkfall to shreds. From the graphics and gameplay choices to even the grammatically incorrect quest text. It seems he has nothing nice to say at all about Darkfall Online. It was given a score of 2 out of 10. And that would be okay, if he had actually played the game, and that was his honest (unbiased) assessment of Darkfall Online. So how do we know that Ed Zitron/Eurogamer didn't spend time reviewing Darkfall? You see, a month or so earlier, Eurogamer asked Aventurine for a couple of accounts so that they could do a review of Darkfall. Perhaps that was their mistake. If they had only bought an account anonymously, they might not have screwed up their reputation. That the reviewer was known to Aventurine allowed them to check the server logs for those accounts. A post by Tasos on the official Darkfall forums states that the first account had only three minutes of play time. The second had a bit more, two hours over thirteen sessions. (That averages to 9.2 minutes per session -- we do the math so you don't have to.) And to further complicate the issue, most of that two hours according to Tasos was spent in the character creator. That doesn't really seem long enough to conduct a review does it? Unless it's just a review of the character creator, that might be enough for a First Looks piece. But I think it's unfair of Eurogamer to call this a review. It doesn't serve their readers at all well. In fact, it seems there is a trend with the larger gaming sites to not serve their readership fair and unbiased reviews. It must be a couple of years now, but you might remember when Jeff Gerstmann, a well respected computer game journalist (and reviewer) was sacked by Gamespot because he wrote an unfavorable review for a game that was making Gamespot a bundle in advertising revenue. That incident whipped up a storm that revealed that the big game publishers regularly threatened to pull advertising if their new big release didn't score well in a review. Perhaps Darkfall didn't have a big enough advertising budget for Eurogamer. Now I'm not saying here, despite the snarky comments, that the review Ed Zitron performed would not have been the same if he had spent twenty hours instead of two playing the game. He might well have hated every minute of that twenty hours. However, I think the game deserved to be properly reviewed considering that there have been some favorable reviews published already, and that there seems to be a core set of players who enjoy the experience of Darkfall Online, despite some of the issues it has. I really wonder if we can really trust the big gaming sites to do the right thing by the readers. If I'm considering whether or not to buy that new release game, I'm going to want all the facts and not a little bit of opinion from the review. I do want to know if the reviewer liked the game, what made him grouchy, and what made him laugh. In the past, certain bugs have completely turned me off a game. If a reviewer can't mention those negatives and score accordingly, for fear of losing ad revenue, I might end up wasting nearly a hundred Aussie dollars on that game. On the flip side, if a reviewer doesn't play the game, but picks up all the negative comments online and merges them into a 'review' with a low score, I might end up passing on a game that I would otherwise enjoy immensely. How about you. What do you think about this? How much do you rely on the big gaming sites reviews when you're buying a new game? Let me know your thoughts in the comment section.