The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Looking for writer(s) interested in covering MMOs
etoychest
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
OK, so here's the deal. as a games journalist I play a lot of stuff. Too much really, and if there is one breed of game I simply do not have the time and patience to give a fair shake, it's the MMO. I'd still love to give this sort of game coverage, but I think a lot of how they are covered in media today probably isn't from the ideal vantage point. So that is why I'm posting here, to get your thoughts on how you'd like to see MMOs covered, and also to see if there are any budding writers among you who's like to try your hand at it.
I get lots of games like these handed to me almost daily, so mainly it would be about me handing game X over to you and have you test drive it for Y time and cover it in a new and exciting way. For those of you who read Ed Pollard' "MMO Virgin" series with WoW that he did for me, that was sort of testing the waters for this I guess.
So, as said, I'd like to have a two fold discussion here...first on how you feel MMOs are covered by the media, what you like, what you don't like, and how you could see it being improved, and also if you'd be willing to step up and try your hand at doing something about it. Small scale at first, but those of you who may know me know that I'll get the word out if it turns out to be pretty neat (which I hope it will be).
I get lots of games like these handed to me almost daily, so mainly it would be about me handing game X over to you and have you test drive it for Y time and cover it in a new and exciting way. For those of you who read Ed Pollard' "MMO Virgin" series with WoW that he did for me, that was sort of testing the waters for this I guess.
So, as said, I'd like to have a two fold discussion here...first on how you feel MMOs are covered by the media, what you like, what you don't like, and how you could see it being improved, and also if you'd be willing to step up and try your hand at doing something about it. Small scale at first, but those of you who may know me know that I'll get the word out if it turns out to be pretty neat (which I hope it will be).
etoychest on
0
Posts
And for patching, who knows. Do you re-review the game each patch? Add a postscript to a review if so and so an issue is fixed? Simply include them as "news" and leave a review as-is? These are editorial concerns rather than writing ones, but the shifting nature of MMOs, as opposed to a single-player game where the core content is (more or less) static, makes it hard to know at times just how to approach reviewing, from a writing standpoint.
The MMO Virgin approach has its merits, as it approaches the game from an angle many people will likely approach a product from, but it has two drawbacks: one, you need a new sacrificial virgin each time so you'll go through writers rather quickly, and the Virgin may not have the practical experience to pick apart the individual mechanics of the game and make a really comprehensive assessment of how they fit together and how well the game works on a large scale.
If I were to write a review, I would probably devote two weeks to play, trying to get in a few hours a day for maximum exposure. Try things out, let the game explain itself as best it can, poke at the mechanics, speak with other players, do my best to get a picture of how the game comes together, if I had press credentials I'd probably try to get a hold of some of the developers too and see if I could get anything aside from market speak out of them. At the end of those two weeks, I'd sit down to write the review, going through highlights of each day with a "too long didn't read" summation at the end which pulls the camera back to look at the game as a whole and evaluate how the mechanics, players, developers and the like interact to form the one big machine that is an MMO.
I know that sounds a bit old hat, guts-to-wide view, but for an MMO it really requires more time and effort than in other games because you need to devote so much time to finding out how the game works with other people. In, say, Half-Life 2, you can blow through the game in the space of a day or two at most. Maybe go back and replay an area or two, try some things out, but in the end it isn't too hard to get the whole experience really fast and then write a review of it. An MMO needs other people around - meaning you need to interact with those people, and see how those people interact with the mechanics of the game, and how the mechanics interact with them, to get a full feel for how well the entire experience of the game works. And that takes time. Two weeks, for some games, may not even be long enough.
Anyway, if you need writers, especially paid writers (because I need my starving college kid money, oh god), I'd be glad to help if you think I can help. I have some previously published work you are free to look over and judge if it's the sort of thing you need.
Then update (weekly? biweekly? monthly?) with more info, maybe about higher level content, going over recent patches and changes; eventually culminating in talking about the endgame. And then installments about the ongoing community and game systems, changes with patches and such.
I think it's EGM magazine that has a column like this about FFXI, and there actually is an MMO Monthly magazine, that'd be a good place to see how (successful?) professionals handle the issue.
Most likely, you'll need specific writers for each MMO, as they are large timesinks, and then probably an MMO head journalist writer an overall article highlighting new developments in the MMO world (again, I'd say see if MMO Monthly has a good letter from the editor kind of thing).
If you want to get some kind of MMO review going I have 2 suggestion:
1) have more then 1 persons opinion and give both scores (similar to how Game Informer does every game, but you know, it would actually be good writing)
2) Have those people come back and re-review the game a few months after the initial review, this lets then experience a big change and if there where any bugs or game play issues in the origional release (or beta, which would really help to get a review out before everyone actually gets to play the damn thing) they might get fixed down the road and make the experience more enjoyable.
Your best bet, I think, is to get reviewers who did but no longer do play the game, but who also managed to leave the game in question without it leaving a sour taste in their mouth.
To the point that they are barely the same game anymore.
Others just expand in content.
Guild Wars and WoW, for example, are pretty much the same game they were when they came out, just with more content than before.
Compare that to say, EVE or CoH, and the difference is staggering. They're more like sequels than patches.
To give an honest, good review of an MMO, you have to play it with other people, get to know the community, see what it's like to level up, see what the endgame is like, thoroughly test the balance and the mechanics etc. etc. All this takes time. Putting up a review like this would take months.
Here's the problem. The best time to play an MMO is when it launches. You are the same level as most people, you are riding the wave. You are experiencing everything first hand, with your friends, setting server firsts, making legends, etc.
If you wait for a review, you'd miss out on all that.
One big question for any MMO column is whether it would focus on just new developments or on player advocacy. Obviously both are worthwhile, though I'd think player advocacy would be 1) harder to write, 2) more valuable to players, and 3) more interesting.
Voices advocating for players (things that have gone wrong, unfixed problems, new things that would add to the game) are fairly rare in the "mainstream". I think this is largely because official and unofficial forums tend to have such suggestions devolve into whining and counter-whining. But in a properly edited format, it could be great and actually help advance the state of MMOs.
> turn on light
Good start to the day. Pity it's going to be the worst one of your life. The light is now on.
There is a large breadth of possible experiences, between all the servers and classes and sides and guilds and zones and any other sort of variable choice you have at any moment. And then there is a huge depth - in the sense that you have to spend a lot of time, not necessarily that the game is DEEP - which makes getting a full spectrum of the game a hellish prospect. What could you do? Find the worst and best possible servers you can, play on each of them up to max level, compare your experiences, and say the game's rating is somewhere in the middle?
Maybe a reviewer would be better off just collecting opinions from other people. Ask questions to random people playing the game that you pass. Find a few people who've cancelled their subscriptions and ask why they stopped playing the game. You could, possibly, get a good index of the game's quality by taking the aggregate of as many people as you can manage. But, is that really a valid review? And you could easily stumble into something like the World of Warcraft forums and come off with perhaps the most skewed perspective of the game imaginable.
Another thing I wonder is whether the companies would be willing to flex a little bit to help you review the game. Would they be willing to give you levelled characters of each class, to help you get a feel for content without having to slog through the entirety of itself on its own?
And, of course, the issue of the MMOs changing. If somebody were to pick up World of Warcraft right now, on the advice of your review stating that the endgame was sex-tacular, that wouldn't matter, because the endgame is to be completely replaced... sometime. Probably before they get to it. Maybe not. But the point is: your experience does not necessarily have any bearing on the experiences of the people reading the review. So what can you do?
I feel that reading a laundry list of the game's design features and basing your score directly on that would be about as effective as actually playing the thing.
Oh god, this, especially for EVE. 90-odd percent of reviews published about the game are now heinously inaccurate. It isn't the same game it was in 2003, not by a long shot. Not even the interface is the same anymore. Once Trinity lands in a month or two it won't even be the same graphics. This is what I mean by a game that evolves so much over time - a review of Half-Life 2 or a Final Fantasy title will always reflect the quality of the product. A game like EVE needs to be re-reviewed every year, practically.
Not to mention that many MMOs try to offer venues for everyone. Like dungeon crawls for smaller groups to large raids for those of us who are taking basement-dwelling to new extremes. The stakes are higher here, as a 50 dollar lost on, say, Paper Mario is a drop in the bucket compare to the hundreds a MMO addict will invest.
I do like that some sites come back with a "State of the Game" every so often, but it doesn't feel like it really goes in deep enough. It needs to be a real review and not just a quick glance at recent additions.
Let's take classes, for example. I might have a wonderful time with the Grub Herder, but if a game has 10 classes then the other nine must be "reviewed" as well. And not just "I got to level 10 of 100 and it seemed fine." but "I spent time at endgame and have found X, Y and Z to be awesome, but A, B and C turned me into a forum troll consumed by malice." Honestly, you'd need either 10 reviewers for our imaginary MMORPG example here or lock one reviewer in room for a year. The scope is a bit more grand.
I also feel like reviewers don't have a personal connection of sorts with the game. Patches should be reviewed, but for both current players, ex-players and non-players. It's fine that Mr. Jones who has never played Warhammer in his life doesn't like it, but what about Billy who goes to sleep in Orc footie pajamas? Or the jaded Fred who has forsaken the game many months ago. Is this new patch worth jumping back in?
The point of all this, what I am stressing, is a need for a multi-faceted review system. You need a regular player reviewing every patch and not-so-regular players looking at more "big ticket" patches. If you review a MMORPG (mostly popular ones that will have a lifespan), it should be a more long-term deal. It's not too bad, as you can always yank the Lord of the Rings guy to review a City of Villains patch for outsider opinion and grab a FPS nut for the non-MMO view.
As for reviewing, it be would delightful to do something like that. I'm not sure what dedication you'd require, but any opportunity to pad out the portfolio is nice. So, whether this is paid or not, I don't care so long as I have a chance show some writing to people. Already mentioned in this thread is a need for regular reviewers for each MMORPG, and I agree that this is the way to go. A core of reviewers for each game, and sometimes pluck a writer for say, WoW and give them an EVE patch review so the coveted alternative perspective is covered.
I have a bit more to say on this, but it's approaching 4am and I'm sure the typos have already infiltrated the post.
There are currently no MMOs left that allow you to play on your own and experience 'what the game is all about' lately, some people will argue that you can solo all the way to level 1billion in WoW just fine, sure. But you're not going to do any large raid dungeons without help. So you're forced to group up and socialize.
There are also many aspects you have to look at with MMOs, you have you standard 'Graphics, Game play, Sound, Story' catagories, but you also need to look at the social aspects. How mature is your average player? Is the game covered in gold farmers? How responsive are the GM team if you have a serious problem? Do you find yourself coming to a platue in your adventure because of other people's presence or lack there of?
MMOs attract many different styles of players, from your RP types who enjoy the lore and immersing themselves in to the game, your explorers who's drive is to see the game world and uncover new areas, and then your grind fanatics who all they can think about is getting that next level.
How well does the game cater to each of these types of players? You don't know until you've played every aspect, and you have to pour months of time in to each one to really understand it.
If you want a good MMO review, you need a good team from many diverse gaming backgrounds, and they need to play for 3 months minimum, possibly more, with weekly updates. If it's a gaming blog i suppose this is easy, if it's a monthly mag it could be pretty easy as well, just make sure each member is writing their bit and submitting it so that at the issue release you have your opinions from each of the gamer groups.
Obviously you couldn't have a reviewer for each and every class, that might be going a little overboard. However having say three reviewers of different gaming backgrounds, who prefer different sorts of roles would work well I think. To give an example you have three people: John, Ed, and Tom. They are asked to review WoW and told to choose classes that work differently. John has a preference for melee characters so creates a Warrior, Ed usually prefers casting damage dealers but has decided to roll a Priest for the healing aspect. Finally Tom has created a Hunter, also being a fan of long-range damage dealing.
I think in this way you'd have a varied view of the experience in WoW. These three reviewers will group with each other, but there will be times that they cannot and so they learn what its like to be in a pick up group. By the end of their time reviewing the game, John's Warrior has gone from DPS to Tanking, Ed's Priest juggles between Holy for healing, and Shadow when he feels the need to melt faces. Tom is Beast Mastery in terms of his spec, and enjoys the PvP aspect of the game. Right there we have three very different reviews which would give a good picture of how things work, and the difference in difficulty for some things between certain classes.
They don't necessarily have to go through the endgame but if they choose to it would give even further depth since the roles of many classes change one you begin to raid. Tom would have to learn how to trap and kite properly, John would need to hone his tanking skills and Ed is there with the greatest choice, since he does not have to be Holy. I may have rambled on a bit with this but I think it gives one the idea.
Now I'm not the best writer around, I make mistakes but thankfully have friends to view over what I write to catch the ones I don't catch myself. My writing may not be of a professional level, but what I am good at is MMO's. Over the many different sort of games I think they are the only ones I play the most these days, based both on financial reasons and that I lack any of the newer consoles. From free ones to retail I have tried out many, most of them to stem away my need to play WoW. So given my financial situation, and the preference I already have for MMO's... I'd say I would do alright as a reviewer.
Of course, I still have an issue with really not knowing how one could possibly approach reviewing something like an MMO. A static group of reviewers traipsing (my first attempt at that word was "trolloping") around MMOs is a good start, but it still doesn't strike at the core of the issue that you're trying to review much too broad of a spectrum.
I suppose the best that any one person can do is just provide their own opinion, and leave it to readers to say, "Well, a bunch of people didn't like it, but this guy did and I tend to agree with him...." Having a group of reviewers would help with this sort of thing.
So, I'm quite interested, though looking at this thread, I'm certainly not the only one.
SE++ Map Steam
As these are timesinks, there is certainly a notion that these would be covered in parallel, so multiple people could be involved, as mentioned, writing as a team, also bringing different levels of expertise to the project. At Joystiq we write something called the "mega" review, where a small group of writers each sound off on different aspects of a game, in hopes to better capture what people from all walks of gaming life might take away from the experience, be they vet or n00b.
But yea, this is definitely something I'd like to talk to some folks here about maybe collaborating on in the near future.
From the looks of the thread so far I'm likely the least qualified to do a review since I really don't have real writing experience, though for all I know that might be what you want. In any case you'll hopefully be able to get a good few of us here in this thread for when you decide to do that, I'd personally love to try out Tabula Rasa and I'm sure a few others would too.
I think reviews should take into the Massively Multiplayer aspect. You need multiple people to take the different roles and delve pretty deep into the game as had been explained. The podcast angle also allows for debate, discussion and, in a sense, a form of teaching that should help get the 'review' accross. This moves us away from kinda stupid scores and numbers to personal impressions.
And I'm so down to do this for EVE. I have had hours long conversations about the micro and macro aspects of the universe.
Also, Etoy are you looking for PC reviewers at Snackbar?
There shouldn't be messy number ratings for games of this nature. All you can do is advise the masses, list of the games redeeming qualities, things that are horrible, and things [the developers] could easily improve. For example, I cannot stand the leveling grind in FFXI, and I find it necessary to mention it to anyone thinking about the game. Not in a negative fashion, mind you, but in a cautionary prod.
Also, I do not agree that the only way to be fully able to score this genre is by being max level. A discerning gamer can be turned off a game within the first couple hours of play, not wishing to endure sub par game play for X hours before they finally are able to enjoy themselves. In something like WoW, the endgame is remarkably the same for me to the levels preceding it. I stab the bad guy, in different locales, with different skill rotations to count different mob abilities, and for better loot. Sure, I'm killing fantastically modeled enemies based on the lore of the game, in their domains, but after that first visit into Black Temple and the like, the luster fades and you find yourself looking to that next fix, that next new dungeon. Equal parts criticizing the opening levels, coupled with that of the endgame is the key.
The primary fun factor, for me at least, in these games is the Massively Multiplayer portion. Traveling along and grouping with like minded gamers, possibly spending a moment in awe of equipment, or loot, and just talking with them. Camaraderie is a huge portion to my enjoyment, if there's no one to party up and show your deeds to, you might as well be playing Oblivion (which is not a bad thing, but it's soooo lonely).
In summation, a round table podcast or ventrilo chat (which could admittedly, be transcribed and edited for an actual print article), consisting of persons who played the game together for a period of time from level 1, and who can come together and compile of list of pros and cons for why someone should pony up the the dough rather than a arbitrary number makes a better review. As for comeback reviews concerning patches, take one or two of the collective, perhaps one who is still playing said game and someone else who absolutely abhors it, and have them do an update discussion.
Edit: Forgot to mention, I will gladly volunteer to be a test monkey. I'm moving back to civilization and with it comes cable internets and much rejoicing.
As mentioned, I have one copy of Tabula Rasa to send out with a hefty chunk of time, but that is just for one person's experience. Maybe this is the sort of thing that makes MMO coverage a bit prohibitive, or at least challenging.
So yea, there is the multiple people, online chat round table that coule be translated into a single article with multiple vantage points. That sounds really attractive.
Tabula Rasa is one of those games you don't need more than 1 person to review, it's a pretty simple grind fest with a novelty.
My only concern here would be the potential length of such an article. Giving four or five people a proper shake at the various points any MMO review must address (time investment required, friendliness of interface and gameplay, quality of presentation, etc.) could easily result in an article of some length, but if you neuter the time each person has to speak too much, you may as well use a single reviewer for more depth. Now if you're into long articles that's fine, but a lot of readers can be turned off by an article that's too long, even if it's informative.
You will need to figure out some way to make a kind of "TLDR" version for the end or something, a summation of the points all of the reviewers make so that someone busy can get the short version of the article and see what the publication thinks broadly. For that, though, it might not be unwise to borrow the Famitsu scoring system, or something similar to it. Have each man score the game on his own judgment, add or average the scores together, and present that at the beginning or end the article. Hm.
The roundtable is a neat idea, but it's going to require some editorial finesse to ensure it doesn't become too large a rampaging monster.
Kind of poetic that the ideal way to review a MMO is with multiple people. However, I understand the near serendipitous arrangements needed to assemble such a team.
Print it!
A bite-sized summation of the universe pros/cons is fantastic addition.
1) Mix the vets in with the newbs. Hand out those free time cards you have to somebody who has never played the game, and team them up with willing Vets who will show them around as well as offer their perspective. I have friends who quit CoH because of the retardedness of the first hero Task Force (Positron). Vets know the deal with Positron and can say, "If you're willing to get kicked in the balls for four hours, we can do it - or we can do what everybody who likes being happy does and skip it." That one Task Force can kill all enjoyment of the game, yet if you wait 5 levels and start with the 2nd TF you'll never look back - the TFs stay awesome all the way through to level 50.
2) Do interviews with current and past players. MMOs are ever changing, so on top of your main review, the "Player Advocacy" piece is probably the most important and interesting thing you could write. How's the game once you hit 'X' level? What made you drop your subscription? What was your favorite 'X'? What changes are you looking forward to? Etc, etc
3) Getting the groups and doing either a podcast during playsessions or a roundtable discussion afterwards would be awesome. I want to hear stuff like, "The one thing we learned from this playsession is that Defenders are only as good as the people who play them - and Scott was a terrible Defender." Because that's just funny
My biggest issue with reviews of these games is how hideously out of date they are, as the others have mentioned, but I don't think they've emphasized enough how flagrantly off and wrong statements made about these games can be as a result of developers who actually listen to what the players say and go ahead and make use out of their 15$ a month in order to assess their aches and grievances.
Another issue that I'm not sure has been mentioned is that often times the people reviewing these games simply aren't good players, and that's bad, especially in a genre that is nearly entirely composed of hardcore gamers outside of World of Warcraft. A quick look at screenshots of the game reveal that these reviewers haven't even begun to touch often times incredibly large portions of the gameplay, and so I agree that multiple reviewers is definitely the way to approach this. It should also be noted that by having multiple reviewers you can also churn out a much faster progression rate, so that my previous complaint doesn't have to become such an issue.
I won't lie, I'm an enormous Final Fantasy XI veteran, though that certainly isn't the only game under my belt, I can clarify my background with other titles later if you wish. With that said, I'd like to use this game as my prime example of just how immensely ineffective applying the standard approach of reviewing or even simply discussing a game in literature can be as a result of the fact that MMOs more than any other genre are living breathing games that are constantly evolving.
I'm going to use a quote taken from a review I picked on the game at random essentially from the cornucopia of articles available to the waves of readers out there. I'd like to point out that this review hasn't been updated since the release of the expansion it covers, which frustratingly was mostly completed months and months after it was already in the hands of players later on via the updates Square Enix pushes out every two months.
- "So, if you are a new player looking to get into your first MMORPG or looking for something different, you might have a hard time getting over the game's starting difficulty" - Taken from IGN's Treasures of Aht Urghan Review, I have heavy doubts this reviewer is aware of such simple solutions as this particular player's blog, which highlights not only the standard leveling spots, but also the niche ones which tend to allow for skyrocketing through as much as 3-6 levels in a meager three to four hours.
I realize this takes a certain degree of research, but is it really fair to hail the game as having an immensely steep learning curve when in truth the majority of players know the ins and outs of the game like the back of their hand? The only genre that is more thoroughly dissected than the MMO is the fighter, for many plowing through these titles (it's certainly not exclusive to FFXI) is really somewhat akin to a science.
I'll leave off there for now, but the point is that you can't treat an MMO like a regular game when it comes to publishing about it. You need a system, most likely a blog, or for written format, a column, that remains as up to date as possible. I have yet to see a single news post about the new information released over in Japan that began hitting us on the third. This is because game journalists almost universally leave games behind once they've finished with their systematic reviews of the latest expansion put out for a game. If you could establish a system where the members of the teams you're talking about establishing kept up to date information on the MMOs they covered freshly available, I think you would have some serious traffic incoming if you can establish a reputation for decent information, and the writers can distinguish marketing hype, rumors, player speculation, and the phone tag type garbage that could harm the name of the writings.
I stumbled upon Kotaku after Tycho "wanged" it on the home page, and I have to say that system of turning out less flashy overly self-serving information (as a result at a much quicker pace) is infinitely better than what you'll find on IGN or Gamespot, I think it'd be a perfect system for your writers to have a vastly improved approach to writing up on MMOs, and I know it's something I'm capable of.
Who is the review for, though? If the review is for those "hardcore" people who would be willing to spend as much time researching the game as they would actually PLAYING the game... then yes, fine, you have a perfectly valid complaint. But that's hardly the majority of people reading reviews. If the review was for, you know, most people, then outside sources shouldn't be taken into account, because that's not something most people would even do.
I mean, you may as well say that no game ever can be faulted for obscure design, unclear objectives, and a frustratingly unguided experience, because there will always be walkthroughs available. But that'd be dumb.
See how this creates a major divide between what's the major problem you hear people expressing over the game? It should also be noted that leveling in ToAU areas gives an exp bonus and has incredibly fast paced camps that can pull you through multiple 70-75 levels in a matter of hours. Furthermore is the inclusion of easily available rings which multiple your exp by a percentage, exp scrolls, ENMs which are mini-boss fights which provide excellent experience as well as rewards, and the change to the way signet works.
I truly believe a blog updated regularly by a team of players like the people you'll find in this forum is the only way you could truly cover MMOs fairly because of how they are constantly changing. Also, my post described FFXI, I essentially had no choice but to delve into the perspective of a more dedicated player as that's largely what the NA portion of that game's playerbase is composed of. Wings of the Goddess has a very good shot at drastically changing the game however, and just pushing out a review next month of the effects the expansion will create wouldn't be practical in the least.
A large part of my opinion on writing up on MMOs is that you simply cannot treat them like other games. These games are essentially whole worlds, you have pioneers, and aside from new MMOs or content, it is incredibly rare that you won't have people who already know what's up in terms of what has to be done for what you're currently working on, not to mention how conservative even the most casual of MMO player is when it comes to taking risks that endanger their character's lives, seeing as how most MMOs have penalties.
Edit: It might actually be a really interesting article to see just how much of the community of the various MMOs use the various forums available to them. I'm willing to bet it's a fairly high number, and probably varies drastically from game to game.
I am baffled. Your response apparently has nothing to do with what I wrote.
And I know one of my major pet peeves is people who play CoX for 30 minutes (or 20...or 5), say it sucks ass and uninstall it. Although I know I've done the same thing to other MMOs, including EVE.
Tabula Rasa really is just a grind, don't feel bad, and it's absurdly similar to Hellgate London in terms of the characters and weapons, both of which (aside from Templars) are really uninspired. I got in the beta for both, and both were so dry it was almost painful.
City of Heroes I can definitely picture turning people off at the start though, the game really is pretty miserable in terms of presentations at times. My worst memory is back when I tried out playing for a month or so, and flew over the various cities, and the one that has solid canopies of trees was basically made with a 2d flat floor or something with hideous vegetation sprites sticking out. I can understand using gimmicks and tricks to create visual effects, but that was just hideous.
Has that changed since then? I really don't want to be a hypocrite, CoX is immensely fun (arguably only if you're a very imaginative person, as much of the community is.), and I haven't really even gotten all too deep into it. I will however vouch that it has the absolute best community in an MMO.
Also, coolest method of making a profit ever, I won first place in a contest of about 50 or so on Virtue with this guy:
Now in the gaming world, it has binary reactions. People hate them for the grind, and refuse to change their opinion, or people love them for the world at atomsphere, and strive to get the rewards dangled in front of them (This is a reaction to MMOs as a whole, not specific game. If a game sucks or is bugged to hell, well, it'll get a bad review)
Reviewing an MMO is difficult too, because not only are you reviewing based off first impressions, but they're first impressions in a game made to last a looooooong time. I believe the single person review would work for this (Especially if you can't get more than one copy), but with emphasis on non-gameplay aspects in RPGs (FPS, RTS (If it ever comes out) won't wildly change gameplay). And while the gameplay would be covered, it wouldn't be set in stone as "WOW ISN'T FUN I DON'T LIKE LEVEL 18," or as bad as ignoring it entirely.
(I'd be willing to write)
Well, I'd like to start off with Tabula Rasa, and send one person the copy I have and maybe give another person who picks up the game themselves the code for extra month or two as some measure of compensation, and maybe if another person already has experience that would create a nice 3 person vantage on the product. Then, once that article is compiled, we can collectivly decide on what game should be tackled next and I'll get on the horn and request 3 copies of X game from the get go so we could be covered.