| Luck said:
It's either one of those two reasons (only the reviewer knows the truth as he made the review): 1) Showing clips where he intentionally dies to falsely prove his stance that the game is too difficult (It could be too difficult, but why not really show why?) 2) Letting a reviewer who is either a) incapable of playing the game at a skill level achieved by 95% of the players who showed their playthrough or b) simply didn't spend nearly enough time playing the game before reviewing it (hence how much he sucks). And for those who say ''How dare people defend this game'': for me at least, it's not about defending the game or trying to prove that it's good, the problem here is that some reviewers clearly did an extremely poor or dishonest work of reviewing this game. |
As I recall, there were three deaths shown in the review.
The first was the player fumbling on collapsible platforms on the first level, while discussing the way the first level wasn't designed well for new players because of its complexity and difficulty curve. It's the kind of mistake someone might reasonably make if they weren't used to the controls yet (which is likely, since it was from the first level). Bit of a stretch to call it unprofessional.
The second was the player running into a wall during a discussion of features, not difficulty, so I don't see how that's unprofessional.
The third was the player falling after overshooting their jump, amid a discussion about how easy it is to overshoot jumps. Again, on the first level, when a reasonable person would still be getting used to the controls and would make that kind of obvious mistake.
The point I'm trying to make is that someone could have reasonably died these ways, and it doesn't have to be because they're being disingenuous or because, in your opinion, they "suck" too much to be allowed to review this game.
I believe in honesty, civility, generosity, practicality, and impartiality.
