Perhaps some of you have seen this: another site's probably ill-advised accusation concerning a Destructoid reviewer.

First of all, let me be perfectly blunt: I rarely agree with anything Jim Sterling writes and in fact, it's painfully evident that the vast majority of it is designed for gathering attention. And the site he works for…let's just say it isn't one I'd recommend. However, that being said, I will bite the bullet and defend Sterling in this particular case. This is beyond personal feelings; this is about the ongoing belief amongst the gaming public that a critic must complete a game before issuing a review. In regards to Final Fantasy XIII or other games that rely heavily on the story, perhaps there's something to this argument…one cannot anticipate how a relatively deep plot will emerge in the end and of course, that should have a significant impact on the overall score.

However, this is dangerously close to an issue I've often spoken about and one that may place me at odds with many readers. But the simple truth of the matter is that gamers want the impossible: they want in-depth, fully accurate reviews on the day of a game's release (even a week after is considered "late") and at the same time, they refuse to acknowledge the length of the product in question. Hundreds upon hundreds of games get released every year and even the biggest staffs simply do not have the time to complete every last title (ranging anywhere from 6-60 hours) before providing the public with a review. I've heard people compare this to watching half of a movie and then writing a review, or reading half a book or listening to half a CD. This is a terrible analogy. Outside of the story, there are plenty of things to evaluate in a game and just about all of them really won't change over time.

The graphics won't change. Perhaps the choreography of this cut-scene will be better than that one or maybe one environment will be slightly more appealing than the next, but within the first ten minutes of playing, you can tell how great the visuals in Uncharted 2: Among Thieves are, and how lacking they are in Jurassic: The Hunted . The same goes for sound quality (although you might have to play a bit more to judge the diversity of the music). The same goes for game control. A loose or sloppy control mechanic won't suddenly snap out of its funk halfway through the adventure. Really, it's only the story that can significantly change, although if some sources score depth as a category, that may require more game time. The bottom line is this: after reviewing games for all these years, I have almost never finished a game after reviewing it and said to myself, "man, my score was off."

Sterling gave FFXIII a 4/10. Now, that's just plain absurd regardless of the reasons. It's not Rogue Warrior bad. However, I will freely admit that neither Arnold or I completed FFXIII before giving you our reviews. I will freely admit that we often don't complete entire games before reviewing them, and I will further guarantee that other sources do the exact same thing. Look, we do the best we can. I think all sites do. We play as long as we can; we play until we believe we can write an accurate and reliable analysis for our readers. Will our final scores for FFXIII (8.7 for me and 8.1 for Arnold) change after finishing the game? Maybe. But I bet it won't be by much and we should remind you of this: who exactly is going to play for 50 hours if the other elements of the game are disappointing? Some are; some aren't. But that's the point; those other elements do matter, they can be judged before completing the game, and they do represent the majority of the presentation.

There are really only two of us doing reviews here at PSXE. And considering that, I think we pump out a gigantic amount of work. Our relationship with Sony allows us to give you huge reviews like Uncharted 2: Among Thieves , Killzone 2 , God of War III and Heavy Rain the instant the embargos lift. We will miss other titles. It can't be avoided. We will never write a review if we think it would be unfair to the readers, in that we didn't play long enough. In the end, I'd like to say this- any critic worth a salt knows all of this. Please understand the reality of the situation and accept that sometimes, most times, a game will not be completed before the review. And if you compare the highest-rated games to the most beloved/best-selling titles of all time, I think you'll see that critics do a damn good job in this industry.

So please, don't complain too much. …as ridiculous as a 4 sounds.

Subscribe
Notify of
110 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ace_boon_coon
ace_boon_coon
10 years ago

this is why we love gettin our reviews from here. no biased bs

Wage SLAVES
Wage SLAVES
10 years ago

I'll admit I'll go browse the web for news when it gets a little slow here. Im sure I'm not the only one that gets annoyed by the gaming journalism (Ben I know you agree). I just can't stand other sites because it is for the majority ALL flaimbait, ALL fanboy, All the time.

Though, I thought it was already a FACT that the ps3 was a superior console? Everything else is just opinion. Which is fine.

Facts:
Ps3=More reliable
Ps3=Raising the Bar of Games (Best Graphics from exclusives)
Ps3=HD gaming and HD standard media BD
PS3=Standard HDD
PS3=Rechargeable Controllers
Ps3=Free Online Gaming/Browser
Ps3=Best Visual/Audio in a console
http://www.youtube.com/user/Wip3ou7#p/u/13/JeY8Dzb-Vso

Do we really need to argue?

Anyways the only site that gets my attention, if that is worth anything, is PSXEXTREME!!! I know your reviews are always First Rate.

to_far_apart
to_far_apart
10 years ago

I genuinely agree with everything on the matter.

Let's be honest, anyone who really wants a game, especially THAT one game you want, will get it despite whatever a review says. Now with that being said, those same people, like myself, will go to a trustworthy, no nonsense site *cough* notably PSXE *cough* lol, for insight of a particular game. Now, if it comes to a game where I like what i see but I'm still on the edge of purchasing it, then that's where a review becomes more important, what the strengths/weaknesses are, how the story is, graphics (doesn't bother me if the game is great), certain bugs like pixelation, repetition, etc, which do piss the hell out of me to be honest, any one of you would probably agree with me haha.

I feel that a lot of people take these reviews to seriously, if you will. What I mean by this is, some people, aka "fanboys" of a certain game, will take it personal if the review score isn't flawless. The fact is most people don't understand, with the exception of the PSXE crowd here in all honesty, that reviews are simply a tool for those who want to know a little more about a game or see another persons opinion. No review is without fault, despite all efforts, personal opinion in a broad retrospect, does influence a review. The beauty about the editors who do review (ie as exceptional as Ben and Arnold) is that they do provide a unique view, one which is generally neutral. That alone is one hell of a hard job, and i applaud you guys, you two are probably the best reviewers i've seen, along with you guys at PSXE. You guys always outdo yourself.

As for reviewing without completing a game, I definitely have no problem with that. People don't understand the time and energy it takes to review a game, and like you said, if you can narrow it down (iw graphics, music, etc) when you see the first hour of the game, if you will, and you know it's good, then it will generally be good throughout the game. With all the games and different deadlines you guys have to meet and even your personal lives, because i'm pretty sure you guys frequently take work home hahah, so to review games like GOW III, Uncharted 2, FFXIII, is an accomplishment all in itself. I think this in accordance with what i mentioned earlier, a review is a service to us if you think about it. If you don't like the review, or do no want to deal with the reality of the constraints, then deal with it and keep the comments to yourselves, or don't bother reading reviews at all. The analogy of CD and movie reviews is not even comparable to a game review. In my opinion, the amount of time one must take to review a game is mind boggling: discussing the atmosphere of the game, how the game utilizes certain changes from its predecessor, graphical techniques, ideologies/influences brought into the game, how the story is, the problems, the list is endless. If anything, we should consider ourselves lucky to get such insight to games, it really helps a lot when deciding on a game you're unsure of. Especially when the review comes from you guys at PSXE…simply FLAWLESS guys!

Honestly, people shouldn't complain, this is a unique service to the community, and like you said, they have been pretty damn accurate, so i don't agree with the complaining either. It's the reality of life, deal with it.

You guys rock man, keep it up!

to_far_apart
to_far_apart
10 years ago

My apologies guys, i haven't been on for a few weeks. I've had a few busy weeks and hope to be on more frequently now.

Hows everyone doing? Ben, Arnold, LV, Legendary, World, Highlander, etc???

Taha1
Taha1
10 years ago

BRAVO BEN !!
lol

hellish_devil
hellish_devil
10 years ago

i'm still waiting for the Star Ocean International review… and I really don't care if it takes long, as long as it is good and reliable (as most of the reviews from this site).


Last edited by hellish_devil on 3/17/2010 3:27:34 PM

daus26
daus26
10 years ago

Thanks for this editorial. It makes sense to me now. I always thought all review sites play every game all the way to the end. I've been thinking that most played enough till you guys feel like you can write a review about it anyway, but now I know for sure.

I have nothing against this, and it only makes sense.

Bty, a 4/10 does seem a bit absurd.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
10 years ago

Funnily enough, the score mirrors an earlier review given by a Hong Kong based publication…

ed_winchester
ed_winchester
10 years ago

I completely agree with everything you just said in the article

One game that I felt was punished for this – and I dont mean by this webiste but reviews in general – was InFAMOUS. It had one of the best endings in a game in recent times but reviewers had made their mind up about the game before finishing it which meant IMO that the review scores were lower than it deserved

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
10 years ago

I understand what you're saying, but in looking back when you played inFamous, didn't you love playing it even before you got to the story's end? And could you say you would've continued to play it all the way through if all the other elements were lacking…?

I do agree that some scores for the game were low, though.

ed_winchester
ed_winchester
10 years ago

Very good point you make Ben, I never looked at it that way before


Last edited by ed_winchester on 3/17/2010 5:41:38 PM

piratedrunk
piratedrunk
10 years ago

As long as it doesn't heavily factor into the content of the review then it is fine. If the reviewer makes claims that are blatantly false though simply because they did not get through enough of the game then it would be a problem.

I tend to take all reviews with a grain of salt anyways so this isn't a huge deal for me. In fact they rarely make an impact on my purchase decisions.

WolfCrimson
WolfCrimson
10 years ago

This is somewhat… sudden. I can see this issue is annoying for you, since, well, you actually wrote up another article past your usual daily quota of articles. Don't worry though, your perception of what a review should be, and what a reviewer's/critic's should be, is the exact same as mine. I mean, it's quite logical, you review a game for the elements that matter, and you do it until you actually have fully appreciated what said elements are. No need to go beyond that, you're writing a review, not a walkthrough.

That being said, PSXe does seem to be understaffed when it comes to reviewing games. I've never seen a review by John Shepard here, so why not see if he's up for it? No pressure on him, though. Plus why not hire more people? Although I doubt there are many journalists out there of your and Arnold's degree of quality, honesty and non-biased-ness.

Axe99
Axe99
10 years ago

While I agree there are some games that can be realistically reviewed before they're finished, others I think need the full run. In particular, games that are _long_, need to be given time to develop their mechanics before a final verdict can be given – for instance, almost every (respectable) FFXIII review notes that the game picks up substantially at the 15 hour mark. An example I might give would be that I found the first 7.5 hours of Demon's Souls to be terrible – if I had reviewed it based on that, I'd've given it a 5/10 – but later bosses and mechanics (coop and the like) up the value considerably.

At the very least, my view is that any review not based on the full product has to disclose this or it is just plain misleading. I know it's not common industry practice, but if Sterling didn't do this, then he is at least partly at fault.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
10 years ago

One again I will say that any game that requires 15+ hours of what is widely seen as less than interesting game play, before getting 'good', is a poorly designed game and deserves to be clearly labeled as such.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
10 years ago

The mechanics never change; only the depth does. We know what the battle system of FFXIII is right off the bat; we just don't have all the available options until later.

As for Demon's Souls, same thing…the mechanics never changed. I was ready to give that game a high-8 in the first hour, honestly.

to_far_apart
to_far_apart
10 years ago

I agree with Ben, after that first hour of play i was ready to give it a good score also, it really was that good. There are games, that are just that good.

Oxvial
Oxvial
10 years ago

In a way that was better, knowing Sterling he would put a 3 on the game after see the ending.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
10 years ago

Ben,

May I just say BRAVO! Defending Jim Sterling is difficult at the best of times, and defending his score is even more difficult, but I think you pulled off this particular high wire act balancing the indefensible with the core issue. If a game takes upwards of 40-60 hours to complete even at 8 hours a day that's still 5 days solid for a 40 hour game. That's not practical, especially if your review staff is limited.

Oh, and by the way, for anyone about to complain that they should accept reader reviews or some such, consider this. There are many sites that accept freelance (aka reader) submitted reviews. Some sites (very few) try to at least proof and edit such reviews, however most sites do not. The result is often poor, cursory and downright amateurish reviews. PSX on the other hand maintains a high standard of writing and critical review by sticking to the limited number of reviewers – mainly Ben and Arnold. I personally appreciate that commitment to quality. It also protects PSX against the tidal wave of attention seeking style impaired reviews, that so many readers write, thinking that they are being smart or attracting hits.

So, let's cut reviewers a bit of slack when it comes to completing a game, especially a long one. Besides, how many times have each of us played several hours into a game and made our minds up about it? Do you need to play to the bitter end of a game that is simply no good to know it's no good? Nope, you know that a couple of hours in. Do you need to play a stellar game to completion to know it's stellar? nope, you know it within a couple of hours, although for a really good game that isn't weeks long, I could see many a reviewer deciding to finish the game because it's that good.

As for Jim Sterling, there are so many things to criticize him over, why would anyone in their right mind choose to criticize him because he didn't play FFXIII to the end before writing his review? It's a LONG game, and apparently one he did not enjoy.

Ben, thanks again for a thought provoking piece.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
10 years ago

You know that 'article' at dual shockers is verging on the creepy. It boils down to making assumptions on the basis of PSN trophy records. Am I the only one creeped out by someone checking out Jim Sterling's trophy records and then blasting his review on the basis of that?

It's just plain wrong.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
10 years ago

Thanks. We do what we can. 😉

D1g1tal5torm
D1g1tal5torm
10 years ago

Sometimes I find highlander a bit creepy.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
10 years ago

Me? Creepy?

Well I do try…

It's not easy, but someone has to do it.

Wage SLAVES
Wage SLAVES
10 years ago

Highlander rocks…he isn't creepy at all. Well, not when considering Limited Vertigo….


Last edited by Wage SLAVES on 3/17/2010 8:19:45 PM

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
10 years ago

Well I like anime, have an avatar with three cute anime characters, and I tend to be positive about games with babes. Yep, no doubting my creepy-ness, especially for those that don't like anime or pretty women… 😉

Snicket
Snicket
10 years ago

I actually do take issue with this, though I may be in the minority. In fact I do see it as a direct link to the watch half a movie/read half a book argument.

My perspective is from someone in the Film and media arts program, so take this from someone who actually makes movies and games.

If the artists take the time to complete a full package, like a game or a CD then the person who does a review of something should invest some time to expearence the full package. I know of a reviewer who played Heavy Rain, but not the entire way though, in his review he called the game "slow", and it is, but only for the first parts.

If you write a review or give a game a score, and this is more the case when your opinion could help or hurt game sells, you need to take the time to be complete.

I know it takes time to play all these games, its hard to complete a 40+ hour game and give a review on release day. Look at Roger Ebert, the guy probably spends most of his day watching movies, its alot of time but people who do reviews are usually passionate about it, and he has been doing that for years and years. If I had to choose between a review of a half played game on release day or a complete review days or a week later, i'll take the complete version.

If this is a problem, then at the very least mention in your review that you did not complete the game, as to not give false impressions. Or if you cant play them all, focus on only a few titles.

big6
big6
10 years ago

I see your point.
I mean, imagine writing a review for the movie,"Th Sixth Sense", after watching 90% of it?

I guarantee it'd be a lower score than if you were to see the whole thing, with the kick-you-in-your-face twist ending!

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
10 years ago

I get it but this doesn't change what I explained in the article, that the vast majority of the game elements can be judged well before the game is over.

Snicket
Snicket
10 years ago

Very true, I see that here you guys review games based off of graphics, gameplay, sound, control, and replay value. Granted you can get a very good idea about the first four from not completing a game, (I still don't think you should still review a game anyways but we have already established that)But when it comes to replay value, that's something very difficult to score, if you haven't even finished the game.

fluffer nutter
fluffer nutter
10 years ago

How is replay value difficult to score if one hasn't completed the video game? It's very easy to see if games have replay value while you are playing them.
"Does this game make me want to save and go to something else?"
"Once I've saved it, do I really want to come back to it?"
"Why am I saving this game? I won't ever put it back in."
"I shouldn't be playing this game. I've got a presentation to complete which counts for 50% of my final grade!"
"Do these pants make my butt look big?"

These are the kinds of questions that may run through one's head while they are playing a game. If the game feels more like a chore, then I'm pretty sure that one can put a very low score for replayability.


Last edited by fluffer nutter on 3/17/2010 5:54:42 PM

Snicket
Snicket
10 years ago

"I shouldn't be playing this game. I've got a presentation to complete which counts for 50% of my final grade!"

LOL, very true.

kraygen
kraygen
10 years ago

I have to disagree. Movies are all short and are primarily focused on telling a story. while they still have some cgi, music, acting, the same is true of them.

In 30 minutes of a movie you can determine whether or not the acting is good, does the music fit the type of movie, is the cgi good? If movies were 60 hours long no one would finish those either before reviewing them. It would be like saying reviews of star trek next gen released after the first season were unacceptable due to their being 6 more seasons.

The only thing that can't be determined by finishing a video game is how well the story rounds itself out. Ben is completely correct with this article and I support him on this completely.

@ Big6

As for The Sixth Sense, I'm a huge fan of M. Night, but I found that movie incredibly obvious. Go back and watch the opening scene, then consider what the plot of the movie is, I'm sorry it screamed obvious to me. I found some of his other movies very surprising though.

DeejayDeez
DeejayDeez
10 years ago

First off I love your website and your articles. You guys do a great job. I would have to kind of disagree with what you are saying though. I know you said not to compare to movies or books, but unfortunately that would also be a form of media that deserves the same effort for a review. See a Film Critic or a Book Critic would get said piece of work well before it was ever released to the general public (ex. – advance movie showings for only members of the media or critics). This gives them ample time to complete said piece of work and give an accurate AND COMPLETE review. If you aren’t receiving the pieces of work in advance then the publisher obviously doesn’t really want or care about your opinion. Hence you are not a true critic, but just somebody with an opinion.

And if what you are sayingis true, then what stops a publisher from also knowing this and simply taking a really crappy game (rogue warrior), that they probably knew was gonna be crap and just make the first 2-6 hours brilliant so that “the critics” give it rave reviews. Only those who play after the 6 hour mark will realize that the graphics suddenly got bad and there isn’t any sound anymore.

Sorry for the rant! Again, I am not referring to you all, just the article and the new info about reviewing only half a game. I just feel jipped! Whatever happened to the day when people completed their work before giving themselves a pat-on-the-back and saying “DONE”?

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
10 years ago

Deejay: Well, that's a very unrealistic possibility. Developers aren't going to make something great for 6 hours and than suddenly implement junk controls and crappy visuals after a certain point, just to get a score. Devs WANT to make great games. If you've already achieved greatness initially, why stop? No need.

The point is, I agree with your work ethic virtue. However, it's tough to get a "pat on the back" when it takes you 50 hours to complete three or four games, and none of the reviews can possibly be out soon enough to satisfy the readers.

kraygen
kraygen
10 years ago

also movie screenings allow companies to invite several people to view them at once. While a video game company would have to send out thousands of game copies to allow every reputable site to play their game before launch, which just isn't realistic.

There is no way to allow multiple critics to critique a game at once. A dev not sending someone a copy of their game doesn't necessarily mean they don't want their critique.

darxed
darxed
10 years ago

Well I agree with you Ben, I mean, where do you draw the line in completeness? do you have to get all the possible endings in Heavy Rain to review it fairly? If you complete FFXIII, do you have to get all the items and weapons and complete all the missions to review it? A site like this would have to have a huge staff to accomplish that, and It wouldn't make much sense anyway.

Now, I really, really, REALLY don't agree with Jim Sterling on this, and some of the backlash he got is well deserved IMO. He is obviously doing this kind of reviews just to get hits and attention, no more.

He did gave Assassin's Creed a 4.5, btw…


Last edited by darxed on 3/17/2010 4:30:36 PM

JPBooch
JPBooch
10 years ago

I can't blame the reviewers, but maybe the process. Perhaps developers can give you guys a cheat code to change the diificulty or your level so you don't have to do the tedious levelling or farming.

I think it's imperitive to know how a game ends to critique it.

WolfCrimson
WolfCrimson
10 years ago

Speaking of cheat codes, most games this gen seem to not have any cheats in them. Why is that?

SnipeySnake
SnipeySnake
10 years ago

@Wolf
I KNOW! Is it that hard? They help so much when im stuck for so long. Sometimes or even most times, cheats can make a game funner/funnier.

kraygen
kraygen
10 years ago

I disagree, I feel that a cheat code would only weaken the review. If you cheat on the game you don't receive the full impact of the game.

Seeing the end is not the same as experiencing the game.

WolfCrimson
WolfCrimson
10 years ago

Actually, I use cheats just for laughs, I never use them to progress through a game. GTA San Andreas comes to mind… good times, good times.

kraygen
kraygen
10 years ago

@ wolfcrimson

oh i agree that they are loads of fun, i definitely loved them on san andreas, but I don't think cheats should be used for reviews.

when I cheat I go all out, it becomes a very different game for me.

maxpontiac
maxpontiac
10 years ago

I have no problems with some one reviewing the game prior to completing.

I do however have a major problem with someone who reviews a game and fails to explore all it has to offer. To someone who loves a certain game and has spent 50 hours plus in a title, it obvious that the reviewer is not doing any favors to the title, the fanbase, and especially the reader. Hopefully you keep yourself in check when it comes to your own ethics as a professional.

Get past the long paragraphs dealing with only certain features, and it's apparent the reviewer only played long enough to justify their pre-concieved notions and pre-judgements.

Bottom line is, certain titles demand more time being spent.

For example, it's painfully obvious that the a majority of reviewers failed to spend any decent time with Forza 3. If they did, they would have discovered a broken tuning system. They would have also seen the online features removed from Forza 2. I could go further. Instead, the majority of reviews all heralded it as the greatest racer ever created, 2 million copies were sold, and the fan backlash quickly followed.

It's the reviewers job (being key word) to provide the readers that trust them a fair, accurate, and well investigated game review.


Last edited by maxpontiac on 3/17/2010 4:42:22 PM

Lairfan
Lairfan
10 years ago

IMO its alright if a reviewer doesn't complete a game before they review it, but I do have a problem when they don't learn all of the game mechanics and don't know how the game was meant to be played. It would be kind of like playing God of War without realising that you have the ability to dodge, or playing Uncharted 2 without knowing that you can blindfire.

Also, why are you defending this particular guy Ben? It sounds like he cares more about how many hits his site has rather than an informative review. It probably would have been better to defend a more well-respected reviewer who's done the same thing, rather than this idiot. I must say though, you did defend him really well; I just think the defense could have been better spent on someone who actually deserves it.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
10 years ago

It's not really in defense of him; I'm just using that story as a reason to write this, which is a real issue.

JackC8
JackC8
10 years ago

The trouble with that argument is that once you start going down that road, where does it stop? A lot of games are maybe 10 hours long, so is it okay to play 8? That would leave someone with a totally false impression of FFXIII. How about if someone plays 7 hours? 6? 5? Where exactly does it become "not okay"?

I've played my share of games where my opinion of them was at least moderately changed in the last part. A good game with a terrible ending, or a game that took a long time to get going but finished up in fantastic form. Or an excellent game with a stupendous ending – I just finished one of those yesterday: Final Fantasy XII.

I generally agree with you – if you play quite a bit of a game, it's probably safe to say that the remainder of it isn't going to change your opinion much. But the fact that there are exceptions to the rule make it a somewhat risky proposition.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
10 years ago

It's the same philosophy regardless of length; there isn't really any "road."

We play as long as we think necessary to issue an accurate review, and that's that.

kraygen
kraygen
10 years ago

I would question people claiming you have to "beat" the game more than someone saying you have to play it until you feel you have a solid grasp on the game.

Example: Oblivion

If I had only played the main storyline of oblivion I would have give that game probably only a 6/10. The story is incredibly short and would have left me with little knowledge of the depth of the game.

I'm just using this example to point out that Ben is saying that reviewers do need play the game until they have fully grasped the games content, not just play a certain amount of time.

p.s. I've never played a game that the ending drastically changed my opinion of it. For that matter I've played very few that changed my opinion much at all. While the stories ending may prove to have very good endings, they still will not change any feelings of the game other than the story.

www
www
10 years ago

Okay we hear ya, not that I've even thought about this before, I believe pro critics know how to do their work whether or not they play to the end. Its the final score that matters to me but then again seeing SF4 getting sky-rocketed scores when I find SCIV and Tekken 6 more enjoyable, let's just say I don't really pay attention to scores anymore. Like WE already agreed, if FFXIII had a different name, it woulda been a different story at metacritic.

big6
big6
10 years ago

So, going forward, as Game Developers and Publishers know this, expect all future games have their biggest and best (visual/sound/impact) moments early on in their game!

Don't save the best for last!