| Thechalkblock said: You're right, it isn't the reviewers fault that the game that was released was incomplete. Since MAG has had an official release it's basically required for reviewers to review the game no matter what. But like I said, the review is for an incomplete version of the game. Therefore, I question the legitimacy of the review in a couple months. I'm not arguing that reviewers should wait to review a game until it's complete, but rather just whether the review is valid or not. The game was released incomplete, and that's reflected in reviews. The main issue I have with MAG's release is not the low reviews, it's the fact that it's incomplete. Instead of releasing an incomplete game, why didn't Zipper Interactive keep the BETA going awhile longer? People shouldn't have to buy MAG to help Zipper Interactive work out bugs for a couple of months, that's what the BETA should have been for. Therefore I disregard the review, but I also disregard MAG. |
But the thing is the game was released incomplete in your words, that is what users are buying.
Shouldn't they know this?
IGN or any other reviewer can't review promis, they can only review what is there. I'm sure if there were updates promised, they could mention those, but there have been none. How can they talk about updates when Zipper hasn't talked about updates?
How would it actually be more responsible for them to speculate and create rumors in the review?
If for whatever reason Zipper didn't support the game or the patches they released didn't fix anything, how stupid would that make IGN look? They can only review what's in front of them.
Now if there was a seperate MAG expansion pack like Lost and the Damned or Borderlands Zombie Island, then that could be reviewed seperately.
