Just watched a segment with IGN: Out first weekend with XBox One, and two of the four discussing admitted to playing Ryse quite alot. It seems this is a game that actually grows on you and is b etter than some people thought :).

Thats lost on me.... I'm assuming thats analagous in some way.

the general public formed a consensus about mario 3d word (the WiiU game) that it sucks, is uninspiring and overall a dissapointment. yet when people saw the game turned out to be brilliant they changed their mind. so really, i just proved you wrong by giving you an example. 

Okay, thats one example. I'm certainly not claiming my statement was a scientific fact but what I described is generally how these things go. It is not impossible, but it is INCREDIBLY difficult to come back from bad first impressions in the game industry. Its also hard for people to admit a product is flawed after a positive consensus has been made early on (i.e Bioshock, recent GTA games). There is a hive mind quality to much of the gaming press that I think is fueled by the gaming community that demands conformity. I believe to some extent Ryse is a victim of this. I'm not saying its good (haven't played it) but I don't think it had much of a chance. The only way it could've overcome its initial showing would be if it were truly groundbreaking, and that is an unfair expectation for any launch title, especially a new IP.

Ryse was trashed because it is a bad game, its just that simple. people got worried after E3 because what they saw, they saw shallow gameplay with a bunch of QTE's, and thats what got people worried. once people played the game, saw it was pretty much the same as they saw at E3, their fears about the gameplay being lackluster was confirmed. it really doesnt take much to see why the game got trashed, its gameplay is so shallow. block, dodge, hit QTE and repeat. the unlock system just unlocks other QTE's that you cant fail. if you think the game is fun then good, i hope you enjoy it. but trust me when i saw that it really isnt a good game, and i dont even need to play it to tell you so. 

I'm sorry but thats just a ridiculous statement. You can't know how much depth there is to combat without actually playing it.No matter what you see in videos there could always be more.

 Now, I'm not saying that there is more. Maybe its just as shallow as everyone says it is. But your statement right there is exactly the kind of close minded pre-judging that I'm talking about. You haven't played the game and yet you are 100% sure that its bad. Thats just silly, how could you possibly know that?

because i seen it, a billion times. and you know what? every time it looked the same, why? because its pretty repititve. i read reviews and articles that pretty much confirmed what i saw to be true. repititive shallow gameplay. its pertty obvious. you dont change weapons, there isnt any deep combo system, finishing moves are QTE's that YOU CANT LOSE and there are few kinds of emenies. i might come on! any one who has been playing games for a while can spot that this game has a shallow combat system, it doesnt take a genius to figure it out, and when the shallow combat system is the only thing this games offer gameplay wise, then yes, i can state what i stated before. 

Nope, you still can't say that. There can be elegance in simplicity. The Arkham games proved that. You don't know how those pieces ultimately add up in the final game unless you have played it for yourself.

Doesn't matter how many videos you watch or reviews you read. There is no way you can definitively say that you KNOW a game is bad without playing it. You may think its bad based on what you have seen/read, but you don't KNOW that. To say otherwise is silly and it means that your not even willing to give the game a chance either way. I imagine that a lot of reviewers went in with that same attitude. And if they already KNOW for a fact that the game is bad then playing it is just a formality. Their opinion has already been generated.