| nightsurge said: That damage still only applies to the small portion of premium cars though, right? So even after level 40 if you use a different car outside the premium ones there will still be crap damage system. |
What do you mean by "portion of premium cars"?
PullusPardus said:
|
I know, I'm trying to show a comparison between them and IGN, I'm still surprised that IGN had their review ready on the day of the release.
PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.
Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?
| scottie said: For the 2nd time this week (and the second time in my life) I feel the need to defend IGN. Reviewers CANNOT play games in their entirety. Well, some games they can - those that last about 6 hours. The majority of reviews are done to make money, which we cannot blame them for - everyone needs to eat. How long would you guess it would take to full experience every facet of GT5? It's just impractical to expect a reviewer to sink that much time into a game, especially when they need to get the review out as soon as they can, in order for it to actually be useful to anyone.
When reading reviews (and I do hope you read reviews in their entirity) you must always be aware that the reviewer did not play the game as much as you will over your life. |
Actually reviewers are expected to play the entire game. The only reason a reviewer can't review an entire game is that it has a bug that will not allow the game to be completed or its an MMO game which then at least 50 hours should be put into playing the game.
Here at VGChartz we are not submit a review for editing till a game is complete or as stated above its an MMO or has a game crippling bug. There is no reason for any reviewer on any site to be to lazy to not beat a single player campaign and play some multiplayer matches to get a full feel for a game.
| scottie said: For the 2nd time this week (and the second time in my life) I feel the need to defend IGN. Reviewers CANNOT play games in their entirety. Well, some games they can - those that last about 6 hours. The majority of reviews are done to make money, which we cannot blame them for - everyone needs to eat. How long would you guess it would take to full experience every facet of GT5? It's just impractical to expect a reviewer to sink that much time into a game, especially when they need to get the review out as soon as they can, in order for it to actually be useful to anyone.
When reading reviews (and I do hope you read reviews in their entirity) you must always be aware that the reviewer did not play the game as much as you will over your life. |
Why am I going to defend an industry that is showing an ever-increasing lack of professionalism to do their jobs and providing a solid basis to trust reviews of products? It is all now about getting high Metacritic scores, and people rushing to get first with a quick review to get eyeballs to websites. This doubleheader is making reviews increasingly useless. I am glad Gran Turismo 5 exposes how messed up the system is. Maybe Sony should give them a head's up about progressive damage. I do think the system they have is an excellent way to break people into the game.
Interesting how IGN used to set up articles and saying "Sorry, we havn't posted up the review yet cause we have to wait to test out online", and now they just push out half finished reviews. Atleast do what Kotaku does and be like "Played through 40%, X hours, and finished up this, this and that." at the end of their review.
| scottie said: For the 2nd time this week (and the second time in my life) I feel the need to defend IGN. Reviewers CANNOT play games in their entirety. Well, some games they can - those that last about 6 hours. The majority of reviews are done to make money, which we cannot blame them for - everyone needs to eat. How long would you guess it would take to full experience every facet of GT5? It's just impractical to expect a reviewer to sink that much time into a game, especially when they need to get the review out as soon as they can, in order for it to actually be useful to anyone.
When reading reviews (and I do hope you read reviews in their entirity) you must always be aware that the reviewer did not play the game as much as you will over your life. |
Then they don't deserve to review the game. That is essentially a preview. This is why reviewers mean NOTHING to me.
| darkknightkryta said: Interesting how IGN used to set up articles and saying "Sorry, we havn't posted up the review yet cause we have to wait to test out online", and now they just push out half finished reviews. Atleast do what Kotaku does and be like "Played through 40%, X hours, and finished up this, this and that." at the end of their review. |
its also true when a game that they don't want to play at all and isn't much known they give it straight low scores like they did with Sengoku Basara 3 , they just talked about the graphics in the review and how the enemies all look the same, adding that its a Dynasty Warriors-like game.
Ok, one more thing. Maybe companies should send reviewers not only the basic game, they play from the beginning, but also include some saves at various points in the game, including ones where the game is completely unlocked, so reviewers can play around with all the features.
btw this reminded me, does anyone remember this lovely review? 
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/113/1131658p1.html
he complained that the game has too much going on that he didn't feel like unlocking everything and that it should have been unlocked at first.
yes they gave it a 5.5 .....for whatever sake...
GT5 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewers CONFIRMED!!!
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
