when MGSV came out i got into a lot of discussions online with people who did not think Snake was a villain. i would explain he has this international army and get "having an army isn't bad" i would say he has a nuke and get "having a nuke isnt bad it's how we won WWII" it was funny cos all the criticisms were just bouncing off these people due to their US-centric view that if our country does it, it can't possibly be bad.
Kojima is saying a lot of things with him games. a good deal of those things fly over people's heads. look at MGSV reviews and how not a single "journalist" covered the geo political nature of the story. it was just about industry gossip "Fuck Konami" etc. they want an easy narrative, they don't want to think. DS might be a victim of "Is it a walking sim?" just because outrage gets clicks. then in 10 or so years someone who actually does their homework will put together a documentary or whatever and people will go "Oh, yeah...."
I can sympathize with the pressure they might be under to get their content out there and then to also get clicks on that content but, as you say, it really feels like they don't want to get into any kind of "debate" over these kinds of games.
Even just giving the game a chance seemed out of the question as I think many just see the opportunity to bring Kojima down a peg or two.
"Kojima thinks he knows videogames, I'll show him".
What Kojima should have done was said "actually, it;s a game about mental health". They would have been all over that shit.
(Massive LOL when Jim Sterling shat all over Hellblade only to backtrack big time when his buddies told him "No Jim, it's got a female main character and it's all about mental health". Fuckin clown.)
Maybe it's not the best situation in the world to have these 40, 50, 70, 100+ hour games being handed to reviewers with a deadline.
I do enjoy Death Stranding very much but if I was being asked to play it 8 hours a day for 2 weeks straight then that would alter my view quite a bit probably.
From that perspective I can see why a quick, fast and relatively painless gaming experience would be preferable to reviewers. With no systems to really learn or complexity to deal with the job just becomes much easier. "Gunplay feels responsive". "The game makes you feel like Spider-man". Etc.
Might be better if these outlets did like a first impressions thing for launch day/week and then a more in depth review down the line?
If you are a game developer and you know the game you are making is 50 to 70 hours long etc then why would you want to cram all of the systems and the action etc into the early parts of the game? Seems like it would make more sense to start slow and gradually open it up?
There's obviously a disconnect there when the dev is making a long form experience and the audience is saying "no I have 10 games in my backlog so I need to get this over with and go onto the next one".
I don't think that's necessarily an American thing but you can see it come up from time to time when American reviewers get their hands on JRPGs and the like and say things like "the game doesn't open up until the 10 hour mark". Well, of course. It's supposed to be a 50 hour game. I would expect a slow and steady build. Not "here is everything in the first hour now enjoy the next 49".
First person shooters, for example, are definitely just "pick up and play" but not every game needs to be like that and you have to be able to review a game according to what it is trying to achieve.