|
|
 |
| [Oct 03, 2012, 10:03 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 11. |
Re: Out of the Blue |
Oct 4, 2012, 09:37 |
Rigs |
|
|
I see where you're coming from, Creston, don't get me wrong. It's just that I've read reviews on the major sites that sometimes smack of hype and marketing and some that really do look like they played it and have an honest opinion of the game. I wonder what your take is on these things, though...like how long after a game has been released should a reviewer put out his review (should they finish the whole game, most of it, or just get a feel for it and most of it's components - obviously playing the whole thing is ideal but in some games, that's not possible or feasible), how in-depth and long the review itself should be (I've seen one page reviews that seem to get all the relevant things covered, like the 'Out of Eight' reviews and I've seen 10 page, very in-depth reviews covering every aspect of the game) and, as was mentioned, should other games in a series be brought up and compared or should it be evaluated on it's own merits alone?
I'm just curious is all. I'm having sort of a 'writers block' episode lately so I'm not able to easily put into words the point I'm trying to convey...My apologies...
=-Rigs-= |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 'Now, we gave you a promise and we are bound by that promise and damn you for asking for it! And damn me for agreeing to it! And damn all of us to hell, because that is exactly where we're going!' |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Twitter 
