Some are, most are overdramatized and full of hyperbole (which voids the "accurate" part). Exactly like many you could copy/paste from forums, mind you. Most definitely they don't look written by a professional gaming journo.
Of course the review is even more accurate because the writer conveniently forgot to write about quite a few relevant positive aspects of the game.
While simple list of cherry picked beef can most certanly satisfy the haters, that's not what a review is.
No. It's not, as it calls officially confirmed data "rumors".the disclaimer is accurate
You must be playing a different game than I do, Or must have not been here six months ago.his review is not that different from reviews 3 months ago, or 6 months ago, because not much has changed.
The fact that a review has a fairly big possibility to become obsolete, irrelevant and misleading four days after publishing it is a HELL of a journalistic reason to hold it back.I understand you think people should wait for major content patches, but there is no real journalistic reason to.
Journalistic community? Lol. Who are we kidding? We aren't talking about the "journalistic community" (of which, mind you, I've been part for a long, long while), we're talking about a site that didn't publish the review of a game for 10 months, for some weird reason, and then randomly came up with one very conveniently four days before a major update. That's idiotic and unprofessional at best, fishy at worst.Maybe for this game it may happen one day, but you cant hold a journalistic community up to what may one day be, or what is coming next.
The extensive use of hyperbole makes it inaccurate by definition. Now, and even more so in 4 days.Its not the end of the world, but it is an accurate review of the game as it stands, we ll see how accurate it will be in 4 days, but it will probably be accurate still.



Reply With Quote


