rofl, beautiful

and now they're trying to damage control

An earmest attempt at fixing past errors in this regard would involve adjusting the review with the addendum "once the online is fixed, I will readjust this review accordingly." Unfortunately reviews seem to be written in 'fire and forget' mode, despite the internet making them easily searchable years down the road for future buyers.

Please post it.

There's no need to add any addendum. Some webpages update done reviews; others, don't. The same journalist that fucked up is acknowleding the problem by calling The Master Chief Collection "unaceptable" a month after his review.

So first we needed gaming journalists to tell us which games we should plan on liking long before they were released to prop up the pre-order numbers and give the publishers confidence in their marketing budget.

Now we need game journalists to tell us that we shouldn't be buying broken products.....Call me cynical but: 1. we shouldn't need someone to tell us this and 2. They are protecting their own interests as many of these 'broken' games tend not to have advanced copies which significantly devalues any (journalist) reviews for the games as they tend to come after release and everyone has already picked up their pre-orders.

If you ask me game journalists helped to create the problem.

"Our review of MCC made it very clear that matchmaking wasn't working, and that those who wanted the game specifically for multiplayer would be disappointed. After talking it over with other editors, I decided that the collection as a whole was still worthy of 4.5 stars. I stand by that."

"What games did we score lower for similar issues? As for MCC, as I said in the review, I believe that it's an excellent collection for anyone who loves Halo or has always wanted to try it, BUT those who are chiefly interested in playing online via matchmaking will be disappointed."

"A review score alone is meaningless without the context of the words that explain it. A different person might have placed more weight on the matchmaking than I did, and they might have chosen to give it a different score for that reason. I made the matchmaking issues very clear, and I believe the rest of the text justifies the score. Anyone is welcome to disagree, of course, but that's part of the nature of criticism itself."

I agree with him... anygame that scores 90/100 or lower is shit and don't deserve sales... and of course the MP is just worth 10/100 at most since it being completely broken just took it from score, so if the MP was working they would give 100?

The guy is ridiculous =[

Games journalist is the cancer killing video games

Yes Driveclub as well. Do I need to listen every single game now so that I'm not selective? I picked games that are accross a varying number of consoles.

Whats the problem?

Gaming journos for the most part have zero class and integrity. I feel bad for those who do because they are working in a cesspit of an industry.