kafar said:
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. |
I'm glad you picked up WoW as an example. That is a game that, if you and everyone who disagrees with me were right, would be comletely unreviewable.
You think that you can get to level 80(85 soon) and then quickly experience everything? My 3 characters between them have has 22 DAYS playtime under their belt. I have not killed the Lich King in Heroic mode, infact I haven't even fought him in heroic - I haven't really beaten WotLK, except in easy mode, and the expansion is about to come out. My experience with PvP is minimal and I have only played 25% of the 10 characters (Priest and Warr @ 80 and leveling a hunter) By your criteria, I need to play for more than 22 days before I review WoW.
So you must accept that, even if you hold your belief to be true for other games, you cannot believe as you implied you did for MMORPG's. Once you established that, it's just a matter of drawing the line, deciding which games it is feasible to play all of, and which it isn't. We can start with WoW in the 'reviewers have to cut corners' pile, and anything from the beat'em'up genre in the list of games that should be played the whole way through.
Ahh, but where to put GT5?