QL's are sore subject - they can be good to experience the game second-hand, or they can be shit, depending on how they're played. Sometimes the person playing should have done way more research. Every time Brad says, "I'm seeing this for the first time" it makes me want to, as he is also wont to do, "throw my computer out the window". How can you justify the content your creating for your video game website if you're literally unprepared to explain basic mechanics? At the very least, play the first 5 hours but show a save an hour in - that way you at least have enough of a feel of the game to show it off properly. I'm not looking for a speedrun, just competent content.
RANT OVER.
To me, reviews are rarely about purchasing advice - I like them as essays/articles relating to a game I care about. I read them for the language itself, how the reviewer expresses his opinion, rather than to get a feel for the "value" of the game. I'm a big boy - if I want a game, I'll buy it now or later. A review is more of a reflection of the reviewer than of the game. And that's why I hate Kotaku reviews - scoring system have been debated by both readers and reviewers, but their binary YES/NO they run with each review strips the post of any significance. In terms of 'path of least resistance', why would I spent 5 minutes reading when I can look at two positives, two negatives, and a big red or green box to make a decision for me? Similarly, Joystiq used to run non-score reviews, and it was kind of a great feeling to read it and still have the opportunity to interpret the meaning. Now you get to the end and BAM - the whole thing is summarized as 10 half-stars.
tl:dr QL is debatable, review is for reading.
Log in to comment