Sentences with phrase «game reviewers then»

Not exact matches

The reviewers based it off the Alpha / Beta state of the game during early access, the game has changed drastically since then.

Then all of a sudden, kids don't want to say they don't like it, because their friends will tell them «git gud», and game reviewers who typically play all games at easy don't want to say those games suck to not lose their «reputation» as gamers (that is, unless they are bribed).

A.J. Maciejewski (crazyaejay): I understand what you mean and I'm sorry if this sounds arrogant but completing this enormous game then reviewing it is a lot more than many other reviewers can say they did.

The reviewer states that the dull level designs don't offer any challenge, but then he states that there IS a challenge in some of the «cheaper» tricks in the game and the interesting boss battles.

honestly, every reviewer should try to make their own game or two or five and then realise you can't really be a good video game professional reviewer unless... you have tried to make a game your own.

If you don't want reviewers to bash your game for not giving the online mode a chance, then make the single player just as engaging or a good companion to the online mode.

Imagine if a reviewer ignored a major problem in the game, because «It'll get fixed» and then that problem never does get fixed?

As for Yooka Laylee, if it didn't deliver good results for reviewers, it most likely won't sell well because at the end of the day, money's the thing and if the devs don't make profit out of the game, then the game bombed hard.

If you don't think your game is [not] completely finished, then you can upload it to the «Beta» or «Work in Progress» sections where the reviewers and the community are more understanding of you as a developer.

I think a reviewer's opinion is obviously a part of whether they like a game or not, but they have to be able to objectively qualify why they think the way they do and then weigh that against some sort of criteria that should be set down by the editors (where applicable) to come to a final conclusion on the game's score.

Then reviewers would crap all over it because it's not as pretty or large as other retail games and noone would buy it because it gets considered shovelware.

Because software such as this lacks traditional video game mechanics, then my job as a reviewer is to scrutinize the story because that is where the emphasis lies.

I mean I bet the reviewer played the game on the easiest setting and then bitched about its ease.

Famitsu have four reviewers who score the game out of 10, then they just add the scores together.

Then the reviewer gives the game a bad score and all of a sudden people agree with it without even trying the game.

If this were an RPG or something that is designed to suck you in and spit you out 12 nutritionally starved hours later it would be a different matter but for a game that is mobile and meant to be played on a bus or on a short journey then the reviewers might not have that experience available to them and certainly not the time to schedule it either.

If the game's developer, Cyanide Studios, can «smooth out the creases and keep delivering the narrative goods» then The Council could be the next big hit in the narrative games genre, the reviewer concluded.

If a reviewer knows their history, then comparisons to other platinum games or viewtiful joe would help bridge the gap.

I read once that the hard part about being a video game reviewer is sitting through terrible games and then having to spend time writing about them.

Remember: in both cases nobody but the reviewer had played the game at the point the reviews came out - why then were people so quick to damn each respective score (for opposing reasons) if they've no hands - on experience?