• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Edge won't be releasing a review of Death Stranding

Despera

Banned
May 22, 2010
11,604
319
895
I wish I could tell my boss at work that I won't be finishing the task because "I ran out of enthusiasm".

I went into this thread thinking they were taking a stance against scores starting with DS. The Eurogamer route. But nope it's just someone boasting about not doing their job.

Moving on...
 

Despera

Banned
May 22, 2010
11,604
319
895
I’m not english native speaker, so maybe I didn’t understand completely, but they complained because they couldnt review before they could finish the game?, so they give reviews of games they didn’t complete?
They didn't finish the game and won't be reviewing it. At least for the next couple of issues.
 

Panaphonics

Banned
Dec 9, 2016
380
603
460
More like:

Thumper: If you can't say somethin' nice [pauses, for drama and because both Thumper and the actor who played him couldn't remember his line], don't saynothin' at all. Simple: If you cannot say anything nice, then do not say anything at all.
 

cc7rip

Member
Nov 1, 2019
76
49
270
I think its great they guy has the balls to say fuck it, nah I gave up on it so cant review it. Its refreshing, especially in the scummy and dishonest cesspit of journalism. Good on him.
I agree. I think a lot of places are reviewing it higher than they believe the game to be, for fear of repercussions. Seeing an honest post like this is great. Personally I think the game looks hella boring and I would never purchase it.
 

Nitty_Grimes

Member
Aug 4, 2015
2,686
961
520
46
Last time I bought Edge it was mostly advertising the PSP and it pissed me off that I'd bought this magazine that was more advertising pages than it was actual content, never looked back.
Well, buy it now, it's obsessed with the Switch and the editors kids (though he's wound his neck in a bit on that lately since giving up his monthly column (which was mainly about his kid(s) playing on his / their Switch, or taking his Switch to LA)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Breakfast at Noon

mekes

Member
Jun 30, 2013
2,881
2,532
775
London, UK
Gotta call out shitty behaviour by this Nathan Brown guy. It’s one of the bigger end of year releases, but you can’t be bothered? It’s not about whether you have the enthusiasm to enjoy a game, that is not why you were hired to your position. You are all up on twitter, boasting about being rubbish at your job?!
 

ethomaz

I can't stay out of MS threads because Phil is pretty
Mar 19, 2013
32,655
19,296
1,125
38
Brazil
It is a food critic's job to review restaurant food.

Should a food critic have to finish a revolting dish, to be able to say that it was awful?
You just need eat a few to taste a food.
You can't taste a narrative driven game not finishing it.

These are completely differents situation... it more like reviewing a football match only watching the first half.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pallas

brian0057

Member
Jun 18, 2018
1,489
2,637
495
You just need eat a few to taste a food.
You can't taste a narrative driven game not finishing it.

These are completely differents situation... it more like reviewing a football match only watching the first half.
So after 40 hours of gameplay, according to the Edge guy, the game suddenly gets good?
He didn't like it so he didn't finish it. There's your review.

I don't remember people burning an effigy dedicated to Jeff Gerstmann for refusing to review Fallout 76.
But put Kojima's name on the front of the box and suddenly they should finish the game even if they hate it.
 

ethomaz

I can't stay out of MS threads because Phil is pretty
Mar 19, 2013
32,655
19,296
1,125
38
Brazil
So after 40 hours of gameplay, according to the Edge guy, the game suddenly gets good?
He didn't like it so he didn't finish it. There's your review.

I don't remember people burning an effigy dedicated to Jeff Gerstmann for refusing to review Fallout 76.
But put Kojima's name on the front of the box and suddenly they should finish the game even if they hate it.
Unprofessional... he is paid to do the job.
He could choose to not review the game if his boss allow it.
But if he choose to review it or he boss said it had to then he needs to finish.

But from the look of his tweets he will never be a real journalist.
 
Last edited:

brian0057

Member
Jun 18, 2018
1,489
2,637
495
Unprofessional... he is paid to do the job.
He could choose to not review the he if his boss allow it.
But if he choose to review it or he boss said it had to then he needs to finish.

But from the look of his tweets he will never be a real journalist.
> Giant Bomb outright refuses to review Fallout 76 due to how shit the game is.
> "Hahahaha, the game sucks so bad they didn't want to review it. Fuck Bethesda."
> Edge plays 40 hours of Death Stranding and will release a preview without a score despite hating the game.
> "Fuck Edge Magazine. They should do the job they're payed to do. Something, something, unprofessional."

Ok, then.
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

I can't stay out of MS threads because Phil is pretty
Mar 19, 2013
32,655
19,296
1,125
38
Brazil
> Giant Bomb outright refuses to review Fallout 76 due to how shit the game is.
> "Hahahaha, the game sucks so bad they didn't want to review it. Fuck Bethesda."
> Edge plays 40 hours of Death Stranding and will release a preview without a score despite hating the game.
> "Fuck Edge Magazine. They should do the job they're payed to do. Something, something, unprofessional."

Ok, then.
Unprofessional.
Show me my comment saying it was fine lol
There is no difference... bad journalism.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pallas

Clear

Deer/Dur
Feb 2, 2009
10,836
5,016
1,245
Just to put this into context; Check out the YongYea video in the review thread where he mentions up front it was nice of Sony to give him 3 weeks with the game for review.

I'd assume all review codes were dispatched at the same time, meaning that this jack-off couldn't find 3 days in 3 weeks to give it a full assessment, or to hand it off to another reviewer who would.

How is that in any way defensible?
 

Flintty

Member
Apr 24, 2014
4,042
2,235
815
UK
Unprofessional... he is paid to do the job.
He could choose to not review the game if his boss allow it.
But if he choose to review it or he boss said it had to then he needs to finish.

But from the look of his tweets he will never be a real journalist.
Holy shit, the salt in this post.
The reviewer has pushed back on Sony dictating how to do his job. And it looks like he was backed up by his boss. Finishing the game would not change his view. Perhaps you should read the preview before throwing childish insults.
 

Petrae

Member
Nov 19, 2006
6,157
2,942
1,405
48
West Springfield, MA
www.youtube.com
Just to put this into context; Check out the YongYea video in the review thread where he mentions up front it was nice of Sony to give him 3 weeks with the game for review.

I'd assume all review codes were dispatched at the same time, meaning that this jack-off couldn't find 3 days in 3 weeks to give it a full assessment, or to hand it off to another reviewer who would.

How is that in any way defensible?
Aside from YongYea’s obvious Kojima fan status— he’s essentially an influencer who Sony was able to lean on to get a positive review out of— what else was he reviewing at the time? He’s not a dedicated reviewer. He’s a pundit, similar to Jim Sterling... but he reviews far fewer games than even Jim does now. Sony’s decision to give YongYea a review copy makes sense, of course, as he’s a force on YouTube and a fan. I’m pretty confident that Sony didn’t issue any major edicts to him. If I was working in Sony’s PR team, I’d have given him a copy, too.

My main defense is that it’s Q4. The busiest release period of the year. Review outlets are up to their eyeballs in games to cover, all in an expected timely fashion. Depending on EDGE’s staffing situation, there can be a lot to juggle at once. Dedicating 40 hours—an entire normal work week— to one game should be plenty, especially in light of deadlines and workload.

It’s also worth positing that the fact this reviewer decided to quit is a review in and of itself. The end, in this reviewer’s eyes, could never justify the means. To slog through a game more than 40 hours of boring/dull gameplay and not reach the end? It’s understandable to tap out; I would suspect that at least some consumers who blindly buy the game will meet the same end, and that used copies will be plentiful a couple of weeks after release. This title may be “innovative”, but the average consumer gets bored pretty quickly if the underlying game doesn’t do a hell of a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brian0057

DarkBatman

Member
Jun 21, 2018
277
384
315
Germany
Holy shit, the salt in this post.
The reviewer has pushed back on Sony dictating how to do his job. And it looks like he was backed up by his boss. Finishing the game would not change his view. Perhaps you should read the preview before throwing childish insults.
Why are you making those excuses for the journalist?
An embargo and review guidelines are a typical thing for the gaming and movie industry. You want to tell me he played the game for 40 hours and then suddenly came to the conclusion, that he didn't like the rules set up by Sony?
Why did all the other outlets manage to do that without crying like that?
 

Flintty

Member
Apr 24, 2014
4,042
2,235
815
UK
Why are you making those excuses for the journalist?
An embargo and review guidelines are a typical thing for the gaming and movie industry. You want to tell me he played the game for 40 hours and then suddenly came to the conclusion, that he didn't like the rules set up by Sony?
Why did all the other outlets manage to do that without crying like that?
I’m not making excuses. I get what the reviewer is saying and I don’t believe devs and publishers should be dictating review terms and conditions.

Why do you care so much? Genuine question.
 

DarkBatman

Member
Jun 21, 2018
277
384
315
Germany
I’m not making excuses. I get what the reviewer is saying and I don’t believe devs and publishers should be dictating review terms and conditions.

Why do you care so much? Genuine question.
Because if I'm willing to ask the publisher for a review copy, it's important to follow the general guidelines.
Sure, if the guidelines look like "Don't talk shit about that, never mention that gameplay mechanic", yeah, that's wrong.
But others are important to get the full picture, avoid spoilers, and so on.
Additional point: I know to guys here in Germany who also had to review the game, got the guidelines from Sony and didn't had the "You have to finish it in order to write your review" part.
A reason for me to ask myself if this whole story is really that believable. Especially with this sore "Even my wife got I didn't like it" part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ethomaz

Petrae

Member
Nov 19, 2006
6,157
2,942
1,405
48
West Springfield, MA
www.youtube.com
Because if I'm willing to ask the publisher for a review copy, it's important to follow the general guidelines.
Sure, if the guidelines look like "Don't talk shit about that, never mention that gameplay mechanic", yeah, that's wrong.
But others are important to get the full picture, avoid spoilers, and so on.
Additional point: I know to guys here in Germany who also had to review the game, got the guidelines from Sony and didn't had the "You have to finish it in order to write your review" part.
A reason for me to ask myself if this whole story is really that believable. Especially with this sore "Even my wife got I didn't like it" part.
Rather than cite a Sony requisite (which may or may not be valid, according to this testimony), the reviewer should have just gone with the main point: He really didn’t like the game, and it drained his enthusiasm to the point where he couldn’t force himself to finish it.

That would be more impactful than trotting out policies and embargoes as a crutch. It’s okay (even if certain threads here on GAF speak the contrary) to not like or even hate a game that you’re reviewing. Reviewers don’t comprise a hive mind, or else we’d really only need a handful of them. If a game bored you to tears, if it felt more like work than enjoyment, and if you tried but just couldn’t get to the end without wanting to cut off your head because it was so lame, then you should be confident enough to tell your readers/viewers... even if it means catching shit from developer/platform fanboys.
 

Flintty

Member
Apr 24, 2014
4,042
2,235
815
UK
Because if I'm willing to ask the publisher for a review copy, it's important to follow the general guidelines.
Sure, if the guidelines look like "Don't talk shit about that, never mention that gameplay mechanic", yeah, that's wrong.
But others are important to get the full picture, avoid spoilers, and so on.
Additional point: I know to guys here in Germany who also had to review the game, got the guidelines from Sony and didn't had the "You have to finish it in order to write your review" part.
A reason for me to ask myself if this whole story is really that believable. Especially with this sore "Even my wife got I didn't like it" part.
Well I recommend giving the preview a read if you can. It does start with talking about abstaining from reviewing before finishing “something we’re not sure has ever been asked of us before”.

It raises valid points about the problems. There are some positives, but overall it’s long and clunky. Though, contradicting my earlier post, they do say they retain a note of optimism for the second half of the game (against their better instincts). The end point is “expect our final verdict next month - providing we can stagger over the finish line”.

People getting angry should probably give it a read. It’s not as bad as the tweet made out.
 

DarkBatman

Member
Jun 21, 2018
277
384
315
Germany
Well I recommend giving the preview a read if you can. It does start with talking about abstaining from reviewing before finishing “something we’re not sure has ever been asked of us before”.

It raises valid points about the problems. There are some positives, but overall it’s long and clunky. Though, contradicting my earlier post, they do say they retain a note of optimism for the second half of the game (against their better instincts). The end point is “expect our final verdict next month - providing we can stagger over the finish line”.

People getting angry should probably give it a read. It’s not as bad as the tweet made out.
I read it. And my problem is, that I read another critical review that was far better in any way. The IGN one.
Combine that with all the twitter stuff and I just can't take the Edge stuff seriously. Not even one bit.
 

TeddyShardik

Banned
Nov 27, 2013
1,684
151
500
This sounds so fucking wrong. Does that mean they would release the review without finishing the game if they had the opportunity?
Fucking gross.
Yes. That is standard practice with game reviewers. You actually don't need to to beat a game to see if it lives up to its stated goals in gameplay. You can tell very early on. Most people can tell by just watching videos of a game.

Is that enough for a review? No.

So they refrained from writing one, and scoring it as such. Instead they wrote a preview informing readers of their gripes and likes.
Did they do their job? Not in full.
Does their reader base know what they think? Definitely.

All that is missing is that score which only matter for aggregate sites like MetaCritic.

I know MC is a laughable metric for judging quality, but it is a tangible goal to reach for developers for getting their bonuses. So it DOES matter.

So in the end the reviewer decided he didn't want to tangibly hurt the game's devs by giving an ill-informed low score.
Instead they just put out their thoughts about the game without that unimportant/yet important number at the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brian0057

Ar¢tos

Member
Oct 24, 2017
4,047
6,027
710
Krynn
So if a game has a plot twist near the end, that also introduces changes in mechanics and gameplay that could affect the final review score (for better or worse) , reviewers will completely miss it. How can they justify their review after that?
I think all developers of single player games/campaigns should introduce something like that so the gaming world can have a perspective of what reviewers/outlets actually play games and which are lazy bums just trying to get quick cash.
 
Last edited:

brian0057

Member
Jun 18, 2018
1,489
2,637
495
So if a game has a plot twist near the end, that also introduces changes in mechanics and gameplay that could affect the final review score
After 40 hours, the game suddenly turns into a completely different game and it gets good.
You just have to slog through 40 hours of shitty gameplay. Why isn't the game like that instead of wasting your time for 40 hours?
Do you ever wonder why book editors can drop a draft after reading just a single page?
 
Last edited:

Ar¢tos

Member
Oct 24, 2017
4,047
6,027
710
Krynn
After 40 hours, the game suddenly turns into a completely different game and it gets good.
You just have to slog through 40 hours of shitty gameplay. Why isn't the game like that instead of wasting your time for 40 hours?
Do you ever wonder why book editor can drop a draft after reading just a single page?
While unlikely, it wouldn't be the first time such thing happened. We have games that are good the first 2h and a slog the other 20h, imagining the reverse is not out of this world.
 

Petrae

Member
Nov 19, 2006
6,157
2,942
1,405
48
West Springfield, MA
www.youtube.com
So if a game has a plot twist near the end, that also introduces changes in mechanics and gameplay that could affect the final review score (for better or worse) , reviewers will completely miss it. How can they justify their review after that?
Games that suddenly “get good” after 40 hours of slogging/suffering through shitty gameplay are still shit. It could have the greatest narrative ending ever in a video game— that doesn’t necessarily make it worth wanting to repeatedly punch yourself in the face until you get there.

As long as the reviewer is up front as to why the game couldn’t be completed, and makes the argument as to why the game is so shitty... there’s no reason, especially with so many other games in the pipeline needing coverage, for said reviewer to keep playing and have to deal with the boring/dull gameplay any longer.
 

Ar¢tos

Member
Oct 24, 2017
4,047
6,027
710
Krynn
Games that suddenly “get good” after 40 hours of slogging/suffering through shitty gameplay are still shit. It could have the greatest narrative ending ever in a video game— that doesn’t necessarily make it worth wanting to repeatedly punch yourself in the face until you get there.

As long as the reviewer is up front as to why the game couldn’t be completed, and makes the argument as to why the game is so shitty... there’s no reason, especially with so many other games in the pipeline needing coverage, for said reviewer to keep playing and have to deal with the boring/dull gameplay any longer.
Maybe the reason is that it is his job and it is what he is paid to do?
How many professions you know where you get full pay if you quit in the middle because you got bored?

"This heart surgery is boring, I'm not gonna finish it, bye!" "I'm bored of building this house, you can finish it if you want, pay me so I can leave"

Why are professional standards for gaming journalist SO much more relaxed than for other professions?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ethomaz and Drake

TeddyShardik

Banned
Nov 27, 2013
1,684
151
500
So if a game has a plot twist near the end, that also introduces changes in mechanics and gameplay that could affect the final review score (for better or worse) , reviewers will completely miss it. How can they justify their review after that?
I think all developers of single player games/campaigns should introduce something like that so the gaming world can have a perspective of what reviewers/outlets actually play games and which are lazy bums just trying to get quick cash.
I'd argue that this scenario is bad game design.

If something comes out of the blue, changing everything about the game you have been playing for like 10 hours, totally unsignaled....that's not good design.
Noone's asking for handholding here. But a good game designer signals to his players that what you're currently doing is NOT the whole deal.

There's REALLY slow starts. Just look at Monster Hunter.: Even there you KNOW, as a player, that gathering mushrooms won't be all you're going to be doing all game.
You see monsters you can't beat yet, you see even bigger monsters you can't even approach yet.
But they set a goal in your mind.

Having a game where most of you time consosts of tedium, and then at the eleventh hour turn around to display some less annoying tedium, doesn't sound very well designed to me.

Now I know, Kojima always has a suprise up his sleeve. I just question if that one surprise is worth going through hours of tediuim. Kinda like MGSV.
 
Last edited:

Petrae

Member
Nov 19, 2006
6,157
2,942
1,405
48
West Springfield, MA
www.youtube.com
Maybe the reason is that it is his job and it is what he is paid to do?
How many professions you know where you get full pay if you quit in the middle because you got bored?

"This heart surgery is boring, I'm not gonna finish it, bye!" "I'm bored of building this house, you can finish it if you want, pay me so I can leave"

Why are professional standards for gaming journalist SO much more relaxed than for other professions?
We’re not addressing this as a common problem among reviewers, though; we’re addressing this one game, and it’s one that this reviewer had enough of playing. That’s the review. It was bad enough where he couldn’t force himself to finish it.

If he was known to do this in multiple instances, then I’d be rattling my fist at the sky and shouting “PROFESSIONALISM!!!” Taking this as a unique case, though, I’m fine with the guy giving up if the game was too boring to see through.

I think it makes a statement about the gameplay, and I agree that there’s a point where the game needs to “get good” before it’s time to delete it and play something/anything else.
 

Ar¢tos

Member
Oct 24, 2017
4,047
6,027
710
Krynn
We’re not addressing this as a common problem among reviewers, though; we’re addressing this one game, and it’s one that this reviewer had enough of playing. That’s the review. It was bad enough where he couldn’t force himself to finish it.

If he was known to do this in multiple instances, then I’d be rattling my fist at the sky and shouting “PROFESSIONALISM!!!” Taking this as a unique case, though, I’m fine with the guy giving up if the game was too boring to see through.

I think it makes a statement about the gameplay, and I agree that there’s a point where the game needs to “get good” before it’s time to delete it and play something/anything else.
Then instead of bitching that he had to finish the game before reviewing it, he should have said that he wouldn't review the game because he could not fulfill the review requirements.
 

TeddyShardik

Banned
Nov 27, 2013
1,684
151
500
Then instead of bitching that he had to finish the game before reviewing it, he should have said that he wouldn't review the game because he could not fulfill the review requirements.
But that's exactly what he did. He said he wouldn't review it with a score, he instead made it a preview, sharing his opinions. You can't know that before starting a game you've never played, can you?
As I said before, that score doesn't matter much to us consumers in assessing quality, but it does matter to the studio.
They get paid, or not, based on that shit.
So refraining from making it "official" with a low, badly explained score and just keeping it to an opinion piece, was the best solution for everyone.
No dev gets his MC bonus undermined and readers of the publication still know what the reviwers opinion is.

Why are you mad? Would you have rather had a 3/10 review from a guy who claimed he finished the thing, but didn't?
 
Last edited:

Lupin3

Targeting terrorists with a D-Pad
May 9, 2006
2,250
2,467
1,760
The more I hear about this game, the more I want to play it!
 

Clear

Deer/Dur
Feb 2, 2009
10,836
5,016
1,245
It’s also worth positing that the fact this reviewer decided to quit is a review in and of itself. The end, in this reviewer’s eyes, could never justify the means. To slog through a game more than 40 hours of boring/dull gameplay and not reach the end? It’s understandable to tap out; I would suspect that at least some consumers who blindly buy the game will meet the same end, and that used copies will be plentiful a couple of weeks after release. This title may be “innovative”, but the average consumer gets bored pretty quickly if the underlying game doesn’t do a hell of a lot.
I couldn't care less if they love it or hate it. Its irrelevant to me.

The point is that a supposedly professional publication should have the resources to fully review one of the most anticipated releases of the year given 3 fucking weeks to do so!

Not having "fun" with the game isn't a good enough reason for dereliction of duty to the medium, their readership, and even out of simple courtesy to the developers of the work. Trying to excuse this lack of respect on a public platform like Twitter is unforgivable in my view.

To your point about consumers having the same reaction, that's a whole other thing because the buyer is responsible only unto themselves. They bought the thing and are entitled to their opinion as to how well-spent that money was.

This on the other hand is a supposed "professional" who was given a copy freely for the purposes of review, and simply couldn't be bothered. Which is atrocious given the prominence of the release, and doubly so given the lack of consensus published opinion marking it out as being particularly worthy of discussion.

Some people found Twin Peaks: The Return to be disappointing, deathly dull, and no fun to watch. But some people loved it, and much like Death Stranding's case you could argue that at least some of that is because of its director's reputation and cultish standing.

Good or bad though, the actuality is that purely by dint of it being an outlier within an otherwise very homogenous and creatively "safe" field, its especially deserving of attention and discussion. Particularly by those with a stated interest in the medium.

Long story short, this debacle just shows EDGE's pretensions to devotion to the "cutting edge of interactive entertainment" to be a sham. How can you claim seriousness and sit on the fence when an opportunity like this comes along?
 
  • Love
Reactions: Kuranghi

Ar¢tos

Member
Oct 24, 2017
4,047
6,027
710
Krynn
But that's exactly what he did. He said he wouldn't review it with a score, he instead made it a preview, sharing his opinions. You can't know that before starting a game you've never played, can you?
As I said before, that score doesn't matter much to us consumers in assessing quality, but it does matter to the studio.
They get paid, or not, based on that shit.
So refraining from making it "official" with a low, badly explained score and just keeping it to an opinion piece, was the best solution for everyone.
No dev gets his MC bonus undermined and readers of the publication still know what the reviwers opinion is.

Why are you mad? Would you have rather had a 3/10 review from a guy who claimed he finished the thing, but didn't?
I don't care much for the score, I don't play Kojima games. The review embargo is the earlier a review can release, but nothing stops a reviewer from reviewing later. This industry is too reliant on clicks the moment the embargo ends. Reviews would be much more honest if outlets published them when they were ready, instead of rushing to meet an embargo date.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TeddyShardik

FranXico

Gold Member
Dec 7, 2010
11,895
19,459
1,270
I love how almost every poster here taking the opportunity to repeat over and over how shit the game is happens to be a known Xbox fan.

If you are drawing satisfaction from this, you need professional help.
Now imagine that the psychiatrist gives up and says "fuck off, you are too crazy, I'm not treating you".

:D
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Kuranghi

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
6,832
14,339
620
So Edge got Sandy Vagina over the developer asking them to finish the game before reviewing so they're having a tantrum and not doing a review at all. Is that accurate?

It doesn't seem unreasonable for a developer to ask that they finish the game. I mean, I always assumed reviewers did. How can you review something you haven't experienced in its entirety? Would you want to hear a movie review from someone who got called away 20 minutes before the ending? A food critique that only had the appetizer and not the entree or dessert?
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: Kuranghi

Ar¢tos

Member
Oct 24, 2017
4,047
6,027
710
Krynn
I love how almost every poster here taking the opportinity to repeat over and over how shit the game is happens to be a known Xbox fan.

If you are drawing satisfaction from this, you need professional help.
Now imagine that the psychiatrist gives up and says "fuck off, you are too crazy, I'm not treating you".

:D
Tbh I think the game is boring and I'm not a xbox player. I just don't agree with the edge reviewer attitude, since all outlets were given the same amount of time to review the game and even the ones that gave lower scores managed to finish the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AstroRhino

TeddyShardik

Banned
Nov 27, 2013
1,684
151
500
I don't care much for the score, I don't play Kojima games. The review embargo is the earlier a review can release, but nothing stops a reviewer from reviewing later. This industry is too reliant on clicks the moment the embargo ends. Reviews would be much more honest if outlets published them when they were ready, instead of rushing to meet an embargo date.
That point I completely agree with. If everyone would take their time, quality of reviews would be much better.

But that just not tangible, in the current way that sites make their money.
Even LESS so with printed magazines like Edge. They're already lagging behind!

I take "day one" reviews as kind of directions where to spend my money first. I read them, I know what I like, I know what I have to spend this month for games.
If there's something I know I will like, that gets priority.

And then there's games like Death Stranding: I don't know about that one.
I gotta read as much as I can about its game design to see if I wanna spend my money on it.

That's what the "embargo" reviews are for, to me.

We can have another discussion, after half a year maybe, about the quality of the game and its hidden messages, but at the moment I'd rather play MHW: Iceborne, Borderlands 3, or even fucking Bloodborne.

tl;dr: I never take these early reviews all that seriously when talking about a game's qualities. I just take them as a guide to where my money should go first, basically.
 
Last edited:

Katsura

Member
Aug 7, 2019
1,176
1,698
475
I think its great they guy has the balls to say fuck it, nah I gave up on it so cant review it. Its refreshing, especially in the scummy and dishonest cesspit of journalism. Good on him.
Hmm i don't know. I get the impression that he only does that because of the embargo. If it had not been in place, he would have reviewed it without finishing it. It's not exactly a big display of ethics but simply him admitting to not wanting to do his job because someone demanded he actually finished the game before reviewing it
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

I can't stay out of MS threads because Phil is pretty
Mar 19, 2013
32,655
19,296
1,125
38
Brazil
The game being Amazing or shit doesn't matter... you are a professional paid to do that job... you need to do it even if your enthusiasm is inexistent.

That "journalist" should have shame to write these atrocious tweets against the own journalism profession.

The best he can do is take a license from his job or think maybe he is not in the right job.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kuranghi

FranXico

Gold Member
Dec 7, 2010
11,895
19,459
1,270
The game being Amazing or shit doesn't matter... you are a professional paid to do that job... you need to do it even if your enthusiasm is inexistent.

That "journalist" should have shame to write these atrocious tweets against the own journalism profession.

The best he can do is take a license from his job or think maybe he is not in the right job.
To be fair, they aren't real journalists, they're bloggers.
 

Dane

Member
Jul 16, 2019
1,010
939
470
I do agree that reviewing the game before finishing it is bad, but he also says his enthusiasm was lost way before the deadline.

They should review it, because it looks like they unintendedly spared this game from a 5-6 score.
 
Last edited:

blackjon24

Member
Jul 31, 2015
600
340
435
Makes no sense to me. These bums have a job that many would kill for yet can't be bothered to complete a task to completion? Give me the code I'll play it to completion and review it pro bono
 
Last edited: