FlyingLotus said:
Ajescent said:
FlyingLotus said:
_BetterThanToast_ said:
scottie said:
For the 2nd time this week (and the second time in my life) I feel the need to defend IGN.
Reviewers CANNOT play games in their entirety. Well, some games they can - those that last about 6 hours. The majority of reviews are done to make money, which we cannot blame them for - everyone needs to eat. How long would you guess it would take to full experience every facet of GT5? It's just impractical to expect a reviewer to sink that much time into a game, especially when they need to get the review out as soon as they can, in order for it to actually be useful to anyone.
When reading reviews (and I do hope you read reviews in their entirity) you must always be aware that the reviewer did not play the game as much as you will over your life.
|
Oh dear. This is wrong in so many ways.
|
Nope i agree with him. Do you really think reviews put 200 hours in starocean 4 to complete the game fully?
|
But why shouldn't they? If you want to give the game a fair roll of the dice then you investigate every nook and cranny not just skimm it.
As someone said earlier, movie reviews don't just watch the last 20mins of a movie or book reviewers the last 10 pages and say it's awesome/sucky. You need to go all out otherwise you just end up looking foolish.
|
I've never seen a movie over 200 hours.
|
I read books of over 1000 pages 
