There's something definitely "snob" in the eurogamer review. After reading it, I still don't know why the hell they put it an 8 and not a9 or a 7. I mean, they note all the great things but when they refer to the negatives they sound too boscure. I don't know what's wrong with the game in the way they wrote it. To top it all, they haven't tried the multiplayer. So seems to me a rather amateur work and a bad piece of journalism. When I read a review, I expect things to be put as clear as possible. What can I like and what is not working.
Not that I care about absolute ratings, but I'm growing fed up with this new game journalists that like to talk about cinematic experience, narrative fluidity and use all the words they can yet you end up without knowing what makes the game good or bad, fun or boring.
I miss my 90's reviews when things were much clearer, albeit game journalists had no glamour at all.
Not that I care about absolute ratings, but I'm growing fed up with this new game journalists that like to talk about cinematic experience, narrative fluidity and use all the words they can yet you end up without knowing what makes the game good or bad, fun or boring.
I miss my 90's reviews when things were much clearer, albeit game journalists had no glamour at all.