And people take gaming journalism seriously.....

Before: 6.9

After: 8.6

Well it's logical that a different person could give a different opinion about the same game, but I think that the site tried to push to early the first review.

Well, it says a little about the integrity of the site that they didn't stick to their guns, but I prefer it this way because the original review seemed like its only purpose was to bash Nintendo and label the game 'casual'.

Well I thought the original score was a bit low after they praised the hell out of Odin's Sphere.

That's a significant jump in points. The game looked liked it deserved a better score to begin with

I'm glad.

The OP is a bit misleading. First one is an import review, second one is a review of the Western version of the game. It happens all the time that different editors have diff opinions, and RPGFan always has had separate Import and Western Reviews

Still doesn't change the 3/10 Gamecritics gave it...

i agree, don't try to spin it, and discredit RPGFan's credibility just because their import review doesn't agree with your opinion.

Well, Gamecritics invested a whole 3.5 hrs playing it before reviewing it:

Disclosures: This game was obtained via publisher and reviewed on the Wii. Approximately 3.5 hours of play were devoted to the single-player mode, and the game was not completed. There are no multiplayer modes.

http://www.gamecritics.com/brad-gallaway/muramasa-the-demon-blade-review

That says all about their professional level.

im not defending their score or anything, but i don't think a reviewer should have to complete a game before they review it. by 3-4 hours into a game, you should be getting the jist of it. if its bad for the first 3.5 hours, chances are it'll be just as bad the rest of the game. lifes too short to force yourself to force yourself to finish a bad game, especially when there are sooo many more quality games out there.

again, not a dig at the game at all, i havn't even played it yet.