M.U.G.E.N said:
|
If reviewers gave each game the proper time it deserved, they would not still be in business.
Reviews are commercial advice to consumers. They are not designed as some sort of penis measuring competition, they are so that people who are on the fence can decide whether or not to buy GT5. Consequently, a late review does not help these people, they will either have bought the game or forgotten about it (internet forum dwellers obviously excluded).
Reviewers did not get GT5 all that far ahead of time, and they have many games to review. Sinking a hundred hour into it is impossible.And to claim that GT5 is special just shows that you would not be happy with anything other than a perfect review for the game. It is no longer than many, many games this generation, and no more special than many too.
You criticise IGN for focusing on money, not credability - it is a business, and profitability must be the top priority. To demand any else is to demand too much
|
3. If they don't have time they should have done what Gamespot did. give a work in progress review to give early impressions and let readers know a detailed review is on the way.
|
This! IGN has become a joke. They opted to have an early review to get more hits instead of acting professional and playing the game a few more days. I mean those people get paid to play games and write reviews. Even many users on VGC say that they think the game is great (9.2 for example), but also mention that they've only played x hours, so they don't know whether that will change at some point. I think one should review every single feauture of a game, such as trophies (if they are stupid or extremely difficult), 3d and head tracking (in the case of GT5), since, although the gameplay is the most important part, many gamers care about these extras. I haven't read the review, so I've no idea if they mention them. How much time did they play online?
