Fallout New Vegas, a disaster for reviewers.

[smeghead25]

snippity

Y'know, I used to read OPS2 Australia. Also snippity.

I used to love reading that. Then the whole shake up thing happened, half of them stayed at Derwent Howard, half went to Future with OPS, and a few switched to the respective 360 mags. The demo discs stopped (which was the main selling point for me) and were replaced with anime which is all well and good, but at the same price as before? Really? And then the quality just went downhill to the point where I had to wait about 4 months for a review on some games. And I don't just mean little ones, I mean Just Cause 2 among others. So now I'm a subscriber to GameInformer, it's cheap, reliable, gives me news I want before I read it online, and has great quality writing.

I still miss the *unzipping sound* gags though...

 

[veloper]

So, I propose a new system of game reviewing: How long you can play a give title for, before putting it down? Modern Warfare 2 would last an hour. Red Dead, maybe two or three. Fallout New Vegas pushed me until I was too exhausted to continue. Six and a half hours until I quit because my eyesight was blurring. So, full marks for Fallout: New Vegas.

Interesting idea.

Some problems with that though:

1 some great gaming experiences are short and don't have alot of replay value, but are still a blast the first time round. Such a game would get a low score by you, but may still be well worth a budget price.

2 if you don't rate the gameplay, then it all depends on how much mediocrity you can personally stand before you give up. A game may be very long, but what is barely tolerable for you, enough to stick with it to the end, may be intolerable for the next guy.


I agree graphics don't need a rating.
Readers can judge for themselves vids and pics (at the least for the early game) from all over the internet. At most a reviewer may need to warn people about very inconsistent gfx, or really sloppy design at the end of the game.