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?
|
Not sure how long it takes to complete Starocean, but if it is 200 hrs then I expect them to put in 200 hrs. If they didn't then it just highlights the problem of the reviewers mindset. If this is truly the state of video game journalism then it's a big fat joke. Unfortuantely, the joke is on the consumer who is only receiving misinformation.
Back when Baldurs Gate was released, reviewers (namely PC Gamer UK) played it until the end (200hrs). My standards have remained the same. The only way to give a full view of the product is to actually experience the product as much as possible. To do otherwise is unprofessional.
