leo-j said:
I know for a fact that they probably only played the beta, and a tech demo of halo 3 then rated it.
They should finish games, resistance was an amazing game, and was not finshed because of its 20 hour campaign, the thing had one of the best ending gameplay in the world(resistance is the halo for playstation systems). Although it got an average of an 8.6, I think it was tow low of a score, the game is just as great as halo was in every way. |
I hear you - but I can tell you - if you have played or reviewed enough games, you can really come away with an honest assessment of a game within the first hour. With Bioshock, I played it a few times - dropped it and came back to it. I had played it like 3-4 hours and knew how awesome the game is. Any game that has awesome written all over it will scream that within an hour. I did finish Bioshock and didn't change my statement - the game is awesome.
Rarely do I regret the scores I have given games - and most publishers/PR firms I deal with enjoy the reviews and haven't stopped sending me games - except EA. That's another story for another blog.
It's a business - video game reviews. It's just like a breaking news story. You rarely have the time to interview every witness, talk to every officer and take photos of the complete crime scene. You don't fudge - you tell the story. You make sure you have the 5 basic elements (forgive me, if I sound like I am teaching Journalism 101):
Who - what - when - where and why. If any story doesn't have that, it's not a story.
If a review doesn't have that, it's just a rewritten press release.
The reviewer's job to inform - and it's up to you to make a decision. If they have a well-written piece and it's convincing, they've done their job.
I won't rate a game until I am pretty sure the game won't improve much more, or I have completed a game. Since I don't have the luxury of a huge staff and endless amounts of time to finish the game, I will pen a story based on what I have played.
As far as the reviews of Halo 3 and other games weeks before they are released ...
here's the correct answer. When a game goes gold - heads for production - they are made shortly after that. Top tier mags/gaming sites are sent copies literally a day or two after they start running off copies of the game. They have anywhere from a week to a month before the game is released to pen a review. They can finish the game - and write a review. Most times, the reviewer will send or e-mail a copy of the review to the PR firm/developer/publisher and post their story (unless there's an embargo - more on that later). The PR firm/developer/publisher will cherry pick some of the best quotes and phrases in the review and use it in their promo ads and such - like 'This title will knock your socks off! - Gamepro'
As far as embargoes go, the publisher/developer/PR firm will tell you NOT to publish a review before a certain date. If you do, that's a great way to work your way DOWN the food chain in video games. M$ had a firm noon Sunday embargo - notice, not a single review before that time ... but afterward? The flood gates were opened. If you were fortunate enough to get a review copy before the embargo, you were sworn to not say a word. After the embargo is lifted, it's off to the races.
I don't work for ign.com, but I can promise you that had retail copies of all of them like 2 weeks before release.
