Why would they send him an incomplete review build in the first place? Thats ignorant on Sega's part. Don't be surprised if magazine reviews are vastly different than other reviews (like IGN, 1up and others).

Unlike website reviewers who can post reviews the day the game comes out, magazine reviewers have to meet a certain date before it prints.

Did your really read the review. It really doesn't seem like it. Besides being unprofessional with his jabs at Nintendo and the Wii overall, he contradicts himself several times. He didn't play the game in its entirety. He didn't play the multiplayer. He said the story was confusing, yet admitted that he skipped through the cut scenes. I could go on.

You would need to learn the difference between fair criticism and genuine Wii-hate it seems. Fair criticism would be playing the final build of the game. Playing all of the game play modes. Actually watching the cut scenes and then giving your view of the games story. Being fair would also require the review to compare the game to other games on the platform. You don't judge the graphics of a game by what other platforms are capable of. I think FFIV DS looks good but if the game looked identical on PSP, I'd think the graphics were sub par. I used to review games and even as a teenager I conducted myself with more professionalism than this guy.

For the bolded. He was given a build by Sega, and they said that build could be used for review for this months issue, if they gave him a complete build, it would miss print, and would be added next issue. By then the review is worthless for the most part.

I don´t belive that excuse for a second, I think it´s his way of trying to get out of the corner he backed himself in.

Even if we assume it´s true it´s no excuse, he should have at the least informed his readers that it was not a final build and the parts he couldnt play was missing but he didnt.

He should have waited with the review utill he could give it a fair chance but he didnt.

This is my biggest problem: In the forums when he states (lies according to me) he didnt have the final build he also says his collegues had the final build and had had it for sometime.

If his colleugues had it why did he not try and play the parts missing from his so called collegues? Why was he the only one of all of his collegues not having the final build?

All this shows that he is either lying or just didn´t want to make the effort because it´s a wii game, I personally think it´s both.

WoW - You know I have total respect for you but I am going to take you to task here.

It is painfully obvious the reviewer resented having to review this Wii game and totally half-assed it.

One - The comment that Halo 3 compared to Halo is a far cry better than Conduit compared to Goldeneye is not only completely unture it's just plain stupid.   If he said Conduit compared to Perfect Dark I'd have totally agreed with him.

Two - I've got the game.  He has a slight point with the melee attack since if you make a  subtle motion it may not detect it.  As for ruining your aim, you just jab it forward slightly, it was never tossed off my aim- plus it's totally mappable to another button.  As for tossing grenades he never bothered to find out how it works (you aim and shake and it tosses it to where you're pointing) made some false assuptions and then condemns the game because it doesn't work.  It works fine.

Third - He admits he skipped all the cutscenes then complains he didn't understand the story.  WTF??  That's assinine.  That's like reading the first and last chapter of a book and complaining you don't understand how the end happened.  No sh--.  Not saying the story is great but who is he to judge?

Forth - He didn't even play the multiplayer which is half the game (at least).  That would simply not be tolerated on a review of a major FPS on 360.

He grudgingly admits it's fun and that he liked the controls but he had predetermined this game would suck and the review shows that.

Gamepro should be renamed Gamedro...cos they smoke up that HD-Kush...and take jabs. Seriously...what is the deal with reviewers who suck ass? They constantly mention other consoles in their review (very unprofessional...not to mention makes me want to smack him upside the head)...also...whining like a girl. I think that reviews are one of the best and worst things to ever happen to video games. Sure...we can have a good idea of what the game is like...so we can avoid disasters (not possible back in the old days). But at the same time...so many things rely on these reviews...(sales for one...perception of the game as well...a 9 looks better than a 7). I'd bet all my Vg money...that there have been payoffs to reviewers for a good mark for the perception and increase in sales. How about Far Cry 2...it was an average game..but reviewers praised it as the next revolutionary thing in console shooters. That's BS talk...fueled by money.

How could the Bible be a good book if I smeared feces on the cover?  Well the first step to finding out is, of course, looking past the cover.  Journalists often sensationalize mundane things to make them seem more than they are.  By polarizing things, they attract more attention.  Unlike you and other posters, I'm secure enough in my beliefs to not offended by these attempts.  The first is just asking "Is HVS a mediocre developer or were they limited by the Wii's capabilities?"  The point of the second that the graphics aren't jaw-dropping.

WoW, I really can't see how anyone can justify this review.  Your words are containing little wisdom right now and my respect for you as a poster is evaporating faster than water on a hot skillet. A review filled with flame bait, inaccuracies, and flat out contradictions can't be excused.

Thank you for the compliment.  I think a good back and forth is fun once in a while so let's have at it.  ^_^

One - I think you're right.  I think it was an exaggerated claim much akin to lifting a box and saying "this weighs a ton!"  The box doesn't actually weigh a ton, but it weighs a lot.

Two - If that's the case then at most the reviewer would have been able to criticize the default scheme but nothing more.  It would have been a minor point of annoyance (having to remap it), but not a reason to lower the score on its own.

Third - "the boring story that had me tapping the A button as fast as I could during cutscenes" is the quote I'm looking at and in many games this speeds up conversations and the like.  If pushing A skips things entirely then that changes the entire meaning of the statement.  If he was skipping content then I will agree with you.  If he was simply speeding it up to get back into the action then I will not.

Fourth -  Fourth has a "u" in it.

Fifth - Good point.  While multiplayer is not important to me, it is important in the overall scheme of things.  If he was not able to try online multiplayer at the time due to lack of people online then he should publish an addition to review to incorporate it. 

Normaly you are a great poster and I often agree with you but this time you have sunk to the level of the worst trolls here no names but you know who they are.

I dont feel threatend at all I would have gotten this game even if it was rated 1 or 0, the problem I have is:

1. He passes himself of like a proffesional but does a review that is everything but proffesional.

2. He spits in the face of the developers who have put 1000 and 1000´s of hours making this game by not treating it fairly and this could possibly do more damage to the game then any pirating or fanboy troll out there and thats not how a proffesional gamejournalist should behave.

3. *Blaming any shortcomings he thinks the game has on Nintendo is ridiciolus and then saying the less powerfull Wii is to blame for the developer for making a rather generic shooter with a convoluted storyline that isn't as epic or mysterious is even more ludiciriss one thing has nothing to do with the other.

4. Saying that the jump from golden eye to conduit is less then from halo 1 to 3 is a straight out lie, if he said Perfect dark I could maybe agree.

5. Dissing the story because he didnt get it when he skiped the cutscenes is moronic.

6. Giving a game a full review when he didnt even play the full game or try its features as the costumization abd online features is equally moronic.

Nothing about the above can be considered as you said: a fairly decent review that touches on gamemplay, length, controls, and visuals.

It touches gameplay but he never fully explored it.

Length I´ll give him that

Controlls he never tried the different settings

Visuals he compares this game to the PS 3 and 360 why? it this was a multipatform game I could understanut an wii exclusive game? He had no buisness comparing it to HD games.

There is nothing in this review that is fair and balanced and I am very suprised he gave it such a high rating considering what he wrote and not to mention all the times he contradicted himself.

I dont have a problem with him not liking the game or the Wii but the manner he did this review is disqusting and I find it very suprising that you consider it fair and balanced.