| 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. |
no.. you are so wrong. without playing the entire game, what they write can only be preview. let's take World of Warcfraft as an example, the game changes completely after you reach the level cap, you can't *review* the game without experiencing every part of it. let alone it's one of the biggest PS3 title this year. I think reviewers nowadays are spoiled by shooters with tiny length campaign.
