Hawk said:
I was thinking of bringing this up too, but I only had a theory that later magazine reviews actually had reviewers that spent more time playing the game. I didn't really know if my theory was true or not. Do you really know that the magazine reviewers get to spend more time on the game? Because, in that case, obieslut is even more full of fail. He's saying we should remove the scores of the reviews that actually got the time to fully critic the game. |
I haven't grounded this in theory, just basic thought. A website is expected to put up a review right before the launch, on the day it launches or at most a few days after that. It's easy as a website is updatable any moment you chose.
Most gaming magazines come out once a month. Most developers consider this in their lead time (sending their games early on under embargo) and the magazines try to come as close to putting the review up around the release. This can take a couple of weeks though and gives the reviewer more time to experience the game. And as we all know the longer we play a game the more flaws we notice. A website-reviewer is probably still in his buzz after playing through the game once, or maybe even just a couple of days.
Now compare this to a reviewer who has had several weeks with the game. This difference in time and experience is reflected in the scores.
The Doctor will see you now Promoting Lesbianism -->