Since a lot of salenumbers here are incomplete.....

[megaman79]

Oyvoyvoyv said:

Khuutra said:

Gazz said:

I can't be the only one who thinks that reviews of age old games are a waste of time. This site is for sales data and not named VG old games reviews. I loved Shadow of the collosus for example, but I know about that game already and the internet is filled with info and reviews on it. Sales data however seems to be poorly documented.

I can't be the only one here who expects a sales data site to focus on it's core right? Especially when the core is still filled with huge holes..

I'm going to repeat what Naznatips has said in these topics before. DKII may have also said it - BengaBenga, as well.

Old reviews are good for building up a back library of critical data which allows publishers to look at the way we review games and see whether or not working with us is worthwhile. Old reviews help us get new games to review, which is necessary because right now? We're operating almost solely on reviewing out of our own collections. We get review copies, but it's not very many, and we still need to put out reviews. Therefore, we review old games.

There are other reasons, too, but I'm going to bet you won't find them nearly as convincing as that one.

 

I'm just wondering; is there any rule regarding who is able to write a review? Can anyone write a review on any website with no danger of getting sued or anything?

I'd imagine the answer is yes, but I'm wondering as the same isn't the case in Norway (someone reviewed a book in a newspaper, then was sued for it being unrealistic and incorrect).

A review must substantiate their view with evidence to prove what they are saying. They can be sued if the opinion is unfairly warranted, it does happen.

You do learn something at university.