The implication here is that a reviewer, by taking on one game that a developer does, is from that point forward bound to review all future games by that developer so long as he works for the same company? Except in the case where that developer is not divisive, in which case the reviews would be consistently good anyway and we don't need to worry about continuity. Don't you see that this is kind of a ridiculous set of standards to impose?
I said somthing to the same extent yesterday in another forum. He also made comments of disliking anything David Cage was about, and how is intrest in the game was like zero. I really dont know why he, or anyone on the site would have taken the time to review since it is not their, or a majority of the sites intrest. I would have actually preferred Vinny, who plays these types of games, to just QL, or give his thoughts.
He reviewed indigo prophecy, that should qualify. Plus the demo is pretty good so if you want the game but hesitant cause of a review, just wait for price drop, which I suspect will come sooner rather than later.
I do see your point but it's not something you should complain about. You kinda know Alex's taste so judge his review based on that. I do think if there was a mortal kombat game, Jeff would be reviewing it so I see where your coming from.
I think not liking Heavy Rain is a perfect reason to play Beyond: Two Souls for review. It's David Cage's next game and I think that as someone who had played Cage's previous work and came away unimpressed, going into his next game from the perspective of "did they fix this, this, and/or this?" makes a lot of sense, especially if you're curious about the weird "auteur" zeitgeist that seems to always follow every one of Cage's games.
The review is a recommendation, that is all. Alex's review functions as a review by someone who didn't like Heavy Rain. If you are a person that didn't like Heavy Rain, Alex's review is useful to you, his impressions will be relevant to your personal experience rather than the impressions of someone who felt the opposite.
It works exactly in reverse. If you were a person who liked Heavy Rain, a review written by someone who did will be more relevant. Would you accept the complaints of those who didn't like Heavy Rain that a review written by someone who did like it is incorrect because it doesn't suit them? Probably not.
No single recommendation from a single person can be all things for all people. Actually, let me change that. No one thing can be all things to all people. It's a big world, there's room for things to exist that aren't relevant for you.
Consider Carolyn Petit's review of GTA5. If you're a person who shares Carolyn Petit's outlook or opinions on other topics, it stands to reason her review will be relevant to you making a purchasing decision. If you don't (I don't), then her review will not be an effective tool in making a purchasing decision. If you share Jeff Gerstmann's opinion on other things, his review may be more relevant. If you don't, his review will be less relevant.
This is my take on Beyond Two Soul - You can only really compare it with Heavy Rain and it comapires poorly against that. My guess is that even most fans of Heavy Rain would say, "Well, Beyond is interesting, but..."
That 'but' does not make it a bad game, as much as it makes a complex pieces of art and gaming. Anyone could probably tell you that it 'does fail' on some level as a story, but only someone who understand the structure of games and of story narrative or even film theory could tell you WHY.