@lively: But if that game changes dramatically after an update within 6 months, is that review still useful? Fortnite just changed its entire map. Halo is split with multiplayer free and the campaign on Game Pass.
From a coverage perspective why spend hours upon hours dissecting a game to give purchasing advice when part of it is free or all of it is available through a pass. That traditional form of review isn't providing the best advice or information to the consumer/player.
I think it's better to take a step back, address the changes, and figure out what best reflects the current state of the industry.
Most games aren't GAAS and don't change that much after launch. Those are more reviewable and will have value years after release. If we want to review games like they are art, those are the games we should be talking about.
The newsletter mentioned a new Giant Bomb logo, which is blasphemous at best.
Agreed.
I always browse giant bomb content by looking at the latest content from the homepage. I can't do that easily anymore. So, the new site is a big downgrade for me.
I always figured there weren't many Vietnam War games because the US lost that war. Most games want the player to win in the end, so having them play as the US would be very strange. You could probably make a game about the Vietnamese people resisting the powerful evil empire as an underdog, but I guess no one needs me to explain the moral outrage that would cause because you would be killing US soldiers. Because as we all know, killing nazi's or any type of non-Western soldiers is just a game, killing a US soldier is a hanging crime.
Describing it as a loss is a little weird. A failure for sure, but I feel like losing a war entails a lot more catastrophic consequences. Like being conquered or something, not losing a little force projection halfway around the world.
Skytylz's comments