View Single Post


November 27th, 2007, 23:41
Originally Posted by Dhruin View Post
I wrote to Corvus (who has written some nice stuff in the past) about this and he said he couldn't stand to play any more. I don't have a problem with that (I disagree with his assessment but his opinion is his to have) but I said it should be a "first impressions" article, an editorial — whatever, but *not* a review.
I know. I actually went to the Escapist to discuss this, here. As I said there:

I'm sorry but huh?

If I read a book review, I assume the reviewer read the entire thing. If I read a movie review, I assume the reviewer watched the entire thing. And if something is called a game "review", I should damned well be able to assume someone played the entire thing.

Aren't you people getting paid for this? I'd say an integral part of being able to call yourself a game journalist (I usually don't, as the term has too many negative connotations) is that you have more expertise on the subject and, perhaps more importantly, spend more time on games than the average person?

Let me put it this way, if someone plays the Witcher for ten hours, goes onto a forum and posts "this game are the suck", I'd probably fault his usage of the English language, but other than that I'd shrug and go "at least he gave it a try." But he's not a professional, it's not his job to review games. The moment you make that your job, the moment you claim journalistic professionalism, you are held up to higher standards.

Because when push comes to shove, that's what this is about. A journalist's standards. If you do not play the entire game, don't come running to your users with something you claim to be a "review". You haven't played the entire game, then how can you review the entire game? That's patent nonsense. This article is an opinion piece, or an impressions piece, it is not a review.

The Escapist takes its sweet time, being one of the last to review this game, and then brings us a bunch of impressions based on an incomplete playthrough…and you're actually surprised people don't like it? It's an insult both to the professionals who did invest a lot of time before coming to their conclusions and it is deceitful to the readers to call it a review when it really isn't.

But at least Corvus opens by providing some context, that's good.

The fact that you're trying to defend it as such reflects really badly on the standards of the Escapist, you know.
I'm not really blaming Corvus, this is just bad editorial work. Especially when you consider what he mentioned on the Codex:
Well, here's more fuel for the fire. After considerable run-around in getting a copy of the game to run successfully on my machine (auth code mixups on the promotion company's end), my preview code expired. Atari graciously forwarded me a full copy to review. I wanted to get something to the Escapist in a timely fashion and completed the article within a week.

This was back when the game was just released. If I'd known it wasn't going to press right away, I would have taken more time with the game.

Anyway, the patch wasn't out then. So no, I didn't run it with the patch.
Seriously, that's just real bad.
Brother None is offline

Brother None

Brother None's Avatar


Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,552