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?
|
No i don't expect 200 hours, but i do expect disclaimers or explainations, like a reviewer giving an initial review, which may or may not to be updated to a full review later. I don't think its unreasonable to expect a halfway decent job if the person is getting paid. Its because of attitudes like above that review standards can be very poor.
If a reviewer is unsure of something like damage because of time constraints, can't they ask the developer? I mean this "troll" asked and he got a reply. Why didn't the question come a reviewer? I mean its their job to know about a game so as to inform other people.
