| pokoko said: For you, perhaps. The writer noting that the review is only for the content included on the disc and that the publisher has promised more free content is on the way is much more honest, consistent, and professional than making a guess based on content they've never seen. A bad solution is worse than no solution. Moreover, the conversation hasn't been about what I think would help the situation but instead the concept of scores based on promised content. |
First of all, as I've stated, the purpose of a review is to serve as a buyer's guide. I believe my solution better fulfils that purpose.
Second, it is not a bad solution, it is an imperfect solution. And I strongly disagree with your sentiment. If something is broken, wrapping it in duct tape is a much better way forward than just saying "it will never be like new" and leaving it be.
Third, I think that you are taking this to some degrees of abstraction that I never supported. You often use vague terms to change the scenario, however, I understand that you are responding to my from the perspective of "a rule". I get that, however, I also think that we don't need a hard and fast rule and we don't need concrete when forming a "rule". I believe that future content should be factored in to longevity discussions, but that doesn't mean that reviewers can't have those discussions based on promises. It means that they should evaluate the future and make a longevity decision based on it.
If a game releases with nothing in the pipeline but vague "promises" and "eventually"s, that is a far different scenario than if a game is telling you what content is going to be released and a rough timeline on those releases...
