Yes, fair enough. I think my opinion on this is a bit skewed for having forsaken conventional reviews almost entirely and being much more interested in post-launch critique these days. I may have jumped the gun a little.Michiel K wrote: ↑July 15th, 2018, 12:18 pm That's just not realistic with the way the industry (including attached media) works, I'm afraid.
Reviews around release are usually intended as a purchase guide and if a game isn't good after 8-10 hours of play, that's as valuable a point to base your purchase decision on as any, I think.
Cane and Rinse podcast coverage, a Matthewmatosis critique or any "post mortem" critique would be a complete critical breakdown, including where a game actually stands in the spectrum of video gaming history, requiring at least one full playthrough. That's almost impossible a judgment to accurately deliver in time of release.
Perhaps the issue could be alleviated by having publications reach out to specialist contributors for regular long-form critiques covering older games in a separate section from the "normal" reviews? That's certainly something which would make me interested in game magazines and big name websites again.