WereKitten said:
While in the case of a record, a movie, a book I expect the reviewers to have experienced the whole thing and to tell me if they didn't for any reason, the same isn't always possible, obviously, for hugely time-consuming non-linear experiences like videogames. Still, I would say that - especially with big games - a serious reviewer should do exactly what you did right now in your second paragraph: a complete disclosure of how much they played the game, what did they unlock, which classes they tried out. If a reviewers feels like (s)he can't be bothered to play a game past a given level, (s)he has the right to do so, but the duty to tell, for me to consider it an honest and informative review. It's only a paragraph, but it would go a long way for estabilishing a relationship of knowledge and trust towards reviewers. Basically gamers should have much higher standards when it comes to the reviews they consume, and i can't really agree with cutting sloppiness any slack. PS - My disclaimer: I played 0 hours of GT5, and I don't have the intention of playing any of it, because I'm not really into racing sims/realistic driving games. Thus, I won't really weight in on the issue of the progressive damage system, but that's not really the point here. It's not about the aforementioned system being good or bad for this or that category of players, it's about the transparency of the reviewing. |
Yeah, I'll agree with you there, and if they're a decent writer they can probably write it in a way that also contributes to the content of the review, instead of simply being a disclaimer. For example, if they completed the single player campaign in 4 hours they should comment on the game being too short, if they got x hours into a game like GT5 and expect that they are a certain roportion through the game they could praise the game for the amunt of content it contains.
