» Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:17 pm
For example if I were to give a review of New Vegas shortly after receiving it, then I wouldn't be able to say much. I would need at least a week to two weeks in order to profide a detailed review mentioning everything I experienced so that anyone reading the review might be interested in the game and want to buy it.
Instead of a review from a few hours play - 'I started the game, too much talking, not enough killing. I couldn't grasp the controls, I saw the game world and had a panic attack. Game too complex, need Halo'. That kind of review tends to be the usual and lacks any detail, any explanation.
If I were to give Fallout 3 a review, it would be quite detailed. I've got 100% on that game, I've explored pretty much everywhere and seen pretty much everything, if there's anything I'm missed then I'll find it. I would explain the pros and cons, that the game has gender choice and more.
While some reviews I've seen from those who hated the game all tend to say the same thing - 'Hated the intro, why am I playing as a baby? Left vault, took me hours, saw game world, switched off, too big to play without any hand holding'.
Professional reviewers shouldn't review a game until they've seen as much as possible so that they can a fair and unbiased review. Not just see an hour or so then comment on that.