It seems like you're clutching at straws again. His reviews are written, so obviously they aren't going to be on youtube.InvisibleJim said:
The game is about a lot more than just its story, though. If the gameplay is so repetitive and low on interactivity (a valid complaint, as much as I like the paradigm shifts, the battle system only truly shines during boss battles - other encounters are more like a test of patience than actual) you stop caring about advancing the story, I'd say that's a valid reason to call it a day.The Lunatic said:
Well, as I say, it'd depend if it's my job. I think if I was in Jim's position as he was back then, I'd consider it my job to complete the game, given informing my opinion on as much of the game as possible is what I'm being paid to do.NPC009 said:
I think that if you want honest reviews, you have to give reviewers the chance to throw in the towel. Of course they should try to play as much as possible, but if it's become obvious their opinion isn't going to change with a few more hours of play, I think it's reasonable to let them go ahead and write the review. Afterall, as a reader I would want to know what the reviewer thinks. In fact, if someone were to complete a 40 hour epic and slam it, I'd have to wonder if they were being completely honest about dislking it so much. Completing a 40 hour game takes dedication, especially if you have to do it within a week or so and there are other assignments waiting for your attention.The Lunatic said:
Most reviewers don't finish the games. And lets be honest here, the achievement he has, puts him at about the 20 hour mark, FF 13s story, gameplay and characters weren't and hadn't been good up til to that point,(which is when I stopped playing because it was killing me) and even if they got good in the last 30 minutes, that doesn't retroactively make the proceding 24 and a half hours not shit. And 20 hours is MORE than enough to decide if a game is good or not.The Lunatic said:
I'm of the opinion that an ending can't make a game better... or worse. So yeah, not finishing ME3, in my opinion, does not sour the rest of the game, which was great (to me). If the game is enjoyable for 30 hours, an ending can't really affect it that much. Same thing if the game is bad for 30 hours. It can hardly be redeemed so much by the last hour that you forget all the shit and slogging through the bad parts. This idea that the ending is the only thing that matters... I don't know. I don't get it at all. Perhaps the ending can underwhelm you or excite you slightly, but to me, the majority of the experience is all those hours you put into getting to the ending. That's what counts and if the game was bad for several dozens of hours, I can't reasonably expect the person to play through to the end and then suddenly rate the game as better. It probably won't happen.MC1980 said:
It happens more than you might thing. It I haven't dealt with Square Enix in a while and don't know the specifics in their case, but it's not uncommon for PR to be handed a bunch of codes and the words 'spend wisely'. I dunno why it is the way it is, though. Does sending out digital copies cost the company money? Is it a case of not wanting to look cheap and desperate?Beliyal said:
It's not necessarily obligation, but if a reputable critic (among consumers) wants to review a game before it comes out then denying them a review copy is anti-consumer. I assumed Jim Sterling is a reputable journalist and critic since he has worked for multiple video games websites, even if he's on his own now.The Bucket said:
Not sure. It could be cost-related or what you suggested about not wanting to look cheap and desperate. Or maybe they want to make sure that they give the codes only to reputable people, to prevent leaks or something like that. Either way, if they only get a limited amount of codes, then they will probably give them only to well-known and respected sites and companies. I'm not sure where Jim stands with that, probably isn't the highest on the list of people that SE would first approach with a code.NPC009 said:
Well, you just solved the mystery. Why do you go into reputation, journalistic qualifications and reviewer entitlement when you already explained all in two sentences?The Lunatic said:
Not really "cheap and desperate" but it does boil down to basic economics. You always want to keep the number of your freebies limited because while a digital version won't hurt the bottom line very much, it does have an impact on the profit margin.NPC009 said:
I know of some smaller publishers that are a lot more generous, though. NISA basically spams their codes to whoever needs them. (Which is much appreciated, their catalog may be niche and quirky, some of their titles are perfect filler. Slow month? Let's see what NISA's up to! We have something to review, their games get attention, everyone's happy.)LordLundar said:
You're right, he can drop $60 on a new game...which is why he said, more or less, that he would do EXACTLY that.Jamash said:
You almost make it sound as if the company named Disney stands up for fair use and the carefully measured application of copyright law. Which of course couldn't be further from the truth, as Mickey himself would attest to. If you hitch your wagon to Disney, one of greatest forces behind the bastardization of copyright, you've got absolutely no place lecturing anyone on frivolous copyright claims and how the whole system is just so fucked up.Setch Dreskar said:
