Well, but the fact is neither you, I, or Pyro can say that because we haven't played it. Not saying that isn't an entirely plausible possibility, but I don't think you guys put much more stock into the current epoch of the gaming press than I do, really, and both the press and the gaming public at large are hugely bandwagon-driven. I hear what you're saying about the throwback thing, but I'm not sure I can believe that so readily either. Many consumers and critics who might call themselves "old-school" have grown to expect certain things in big-budget titles just like everyone else, and if they don't get them, a game may automatically be labeled a failure. I think all of us can think of at least a few games we really liked that either the press, the public, or both considered to be total wastes of money.
Again, I'm not so much trying to defend the game as I'm trying to say I'm less quick to accept the collective judgment when most people want to see a game fail. There's been bad blood with this one from years and years back, even from some here on OWnet.
Really, I agree entirely with Pyro's post. The game was a total clusterfuck of development and surely anyone that expected it to be the pinnacle of anything was off their rocker. The fact that it's over and done is a good thing, whether the game rocks or sucks balls. But I still understand PR guy's reaction to the venom a bit. I imagine that's a hard thing to take. A lot of reviewing boils down to bullying, and this is no different from the news media or any other such outlet. People want blood and emotion. People want effusive praise or a nearly Biblical act of fiery condemnation. A review that says, "This game is okay, but nothing great," doesn't ignite any feeling, doesn't net you any new readers, doesn't "count" as a stance in sensationalistic journalism. And let's face it, that's nearly all the mainstays of gaming journalism are anymore.
