That is very common, but as Dhruin mentions it is really only acceptable when you are rushing for a Day of Release deadline.

I don't get paid for my reviews at any of the sites I deal with (other than a few thousand $$ of free games … most of which I wouldn't buy anyway … ) - but I do insist that I be allowed to complete games before reviewing. My time is important, but I only review games to share my views and insights with others and hopefully either encourage them to grab gems they might have missed or skip crap not worth buying.

Damn straight.

I do get paid for working on GameBanshee, but I mostly value that I can take my own time with articles, even up to selecting what I want to write about.

As I said on the Codex: When previewing Hard to be a God, I played the demo through 2 times and twice more with different builds just to be sure I explored it properly, I re-read the book which I hadn't picked up in ages, and only after investing that much time, way over 10 hours, did I consider myself qualified to do a preview.

And I think that should be standard. I can understand, having worked in the editorial office of printing media, that deadlines can mess this up and I have no problem with that, but you'd figure that in a month's time they could've spared more than 10 hours. What's more, if you've only spent 10 hours in the game, the article really shouldn't be called a review, because it's not, you're not reviewing the game, you're giving impressions from your sparse playing time. Call a bird a bird and a pig a pig, please.

Exactly. I would call this article a preview, not a review. Is this guy that biased or does he have a personal vendetta against CDProjekt? That was completely ridiculous! When he starts complaining about his ability to time attacks because Geralt becomes semi-transparent?? :rotfl:
Not only was he desperately trying to stretch every last negative flaw he could pull out of his butt, but he also showed his complete lack of skill in playing games in general. Wow, that whole article was incredible.

Failure to compare like with like. Bioshock's graphics are praised in a vague manner. The Witcher is pulled up on some minor clipping issues, cast as indicative of an ugly game. This isn't the case, at least in my opinion.

The portrayal of women is intriguing. On the one hand there's some bawdy fun; with the outrageous suggestion that women might dare to enjoy sex too. On the other, depressingly matter-of-fact chatting between women regarding how badly their abusive husbands beat them.

I found it a refreshingly frank take on "olde worlde" gender roles; compared to the more "right-on" sanitised, contemporary-minded equality of other fantasy games. The rabid, fire and brimstone misogyny of the Reverend was nicely evocative.

As far as the idea that it is patronising and denigrates women that giving shiny, pretty things to them wins their favour (and rational men don't fall to such schemes) - men are cast as mercenary drunks who'll abandon their posts and the like for money, narcotics or plenty of hooch to ruin their minds and livers with.
I don't think either sex is unfairly vaunted or demonised here.

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 not really blaming Corvus, this is just bad editorial work. Especially when you consider what he mentioned on the Codex:
Seriously, that's just real bad.

How come everyone at his site who disagrees with his review is banned?

Because disagreeing is trolling :rolleyes: (note, not "his", though. The writer of the review is a guest writer, he doesn't run the forum in any way)

Apparently, even though I'm not sure as I forgot, Russ Pitts banned me last time too, when I criticised his Fallout 3 preview (which you might remember for being filled with factual mistakes or, as VDweller put it, "[a]s a marketing piece the article is brilliant")

I dunno, maybe I thought too highly of the Escapist when I noted I think of them as a top-tier gaming site in one of their threads recently. Nevermind their forum policies, their editorial standards are really bad, and they're not good at taking criticism.

I'm not banned there yet. Perhaps I have been too civil.

You sayin' I'm not civil?! I'm perfectly civil, you assface!

'tis aint the Codex, bro. BTW, they're doing some deletin' back there in the Escapist thread: noticed the replies count increased to 53, but went back to 52 when I checked.
Well, maybe someone got scared of his own post, who knows. Or maybe it was some hideous profanity (=more criticism).

Yes, some posts have been deleted, including Matt7895's post which quoted Corvus' invitation to criticise and then said "if you want feedback, why are you banning everyone?"

And my post above was a self-deprecating joke, Elwro :P

*sigh* I know ;-)

I just noticed one of the associate editors has Stalin as his avatar. How very fitting!!

Gee, I wish they'd pay Dhruin, Mike and me to write reviews; we buy the games ourselves, usually too!! :) Ah well, at least volunteer sites like this are still well respected!!

No problem. Just ask Myrthos to implement some standard banner code. Then we put 3 banners on the main page and add a nice little annoying pop-under. :p

Too complicated. Sell the site to a gaming news network and let them write your code.

Why not sell the site to M$ instead, they have more money!! :biggrin:

Not progressive enough. This method is so 2004.

EA would probably buy it.

EA would buy anything, funny how Take Two told 'em to sod off.