A few points

Quote Originally Posted by Arlekiel View Post
1)The review is accurate by the time it was reviewed.
Aside from the fact that the review is chocked full of hyperbole, which pretty much voids the "accurate" part. The time the review has been published is the biggest issue. Publishing a review that you *know* will be inaccurate and misleading in four days is very, very poor journalism. Or maybe something else.

2)The reviews are usually not "written and published right away"
This isn't print gaming journalism. This is the internet. Even counting some reasonable time for proofreading and publishing, no review should need more than a day or two before being put online. If a site needs more than that, then it's simply inefficient and run by incompetents, deserving all the criticism they get.

even if he just played for 15 minutes or so... He did nailed some stuff there. Tbh I felt the same "playing an alpha or beta game" thing about the game, and im sure that my ex LS felt the same way, otherwise they wouldnt have left. The game its not in its best moment... thats a reality. If some people enjoy it or not its another thing.
All it takes is reading a couple forums to "nail some stuff". A journalist with any integrity has the duty to play and experience the game for himself for enough time to form a realistic opinion. The screenshots and the content of the article show me that the "writer" here didn't.

3)In his review he states that if the game changes he will make another review for it.
All the more reason NOT to post a review that's going to be irrelevant and misleading soon. Just wait for the changes that you KNOW (and if you don't know you simply shouldn't be a gaming writer) are coming, and then post a *relevant* review after. Easy Peasy.
Did you actually write the review months before and you're afraid to waste it? Well. Though luck.

Again. The first duty of a gaming journalist is to inform (and not mislead) their readers. In this this review simply fails radically.