bugrimmar on 13 January 2015
| Ka-pi96 said: 1. Disagree. There shouldn't be any requirement for journalists to play a specific amount of a game let alone prove it to write a review. 2. I very much agree. If they don't like the genre in the first place then they really have no place at all reviewing the games. 3. Disagree. It's a review, it isn't a preview. Bugs get fixed. When people look at the reviews months or years later they want to see how good the game is, not how good it was on the day it launched since that day is long gone. 4. Not really possible. Reviewers usually get early access to games and what not, so they are already getting favours from publishers. 5. Doesn't really make a lot of sense. I mean, if it was their job to review games then they would be playing them quite a bit for their job anyways. Oh and the sexism is unnecessary. |
If I had written "man who only plays Call of Duty an hour a week" would you say sexism?
It was an example. Chill. And you'd be surprised at how little time some reviewers actually play games. Check out the people who review games for newspapers like the LA Times and such.. the language they use shows that they probably spend less time playing games than using the toilet.
