Thanks for this post! I have Malicious on my download list right now. I'm really excited to play it, but I could not believe the Colin Moriarty review of this game on IGN. I hope he is wrong about this game because his review destroyed it. I don't understand why their site has been on this over critical stance against Japanese PlayStation games as of late. I would like to see an old style review crew format to evaluate games. Even if someone does not like JRPGs, shooters, racers, etc... it would be nice to get different opinions.
I used to post on a magazine forum a few years ago and stirred up a hornets nest with the magazine staff on the site. I confronted them about not actually playing or finishing games from a thread I found that some of them posted in years before. In the old days most of the reviews for Genesis and Super Nintendo games were sometimes based off five minutes of CES playtime with no one actually beating the game. This was confirmed to me by the staff who lamented about games being too long today (2009 is when this happened). My question was this. What if the game starts out great and is terrible later on or vice versa. Are you doing a disservice to the fans and the company if you do not do a complete review? If you can't finish the game do some partial reviews until it's complete. Their excuse was deadlines, but in the age of the internet why not extend the review process?
It only matters to me because I dislike finding out how dishonest most of the magazines (from my past) and websites (from today) really are. I guess my naivety was to blame. Sorry for the rant.
