I'm Forced To Retract My AC Unity Review

After much deliberation, this critic has decided to retract the score he originally gave to Assassin's Creed Unity. Harsh truths have been discovered.

[Dudebro90]

Its a little late. The review has already been seen by many. Pulling it now literally does nothing for anyone.

[TheJacksonRGN]

Actually while it has been seen by many, it hasn't been seen by everyone. The review doesn't help those who will see it later on down the line, and yes new people will come across the review.

[Dudebro90]

If someone hasnt read about it now, they dont care about the game.

[Mr Pumblechook]

I believe in forgiving people but in this instance it implies incompetence or dishonesty.The question is why did reviewer Ben Dutka give it a 9/10, and why has he now two months later retracted that score?

He begins by explaining his belief that "you're unlikely to find any critic who has completed every game he or she has reviewed" - the explicit meaning being that Dutka didn't review the whole game - an unforgivable sin for a person whose job it is to review the whole game. He goes on to say that now he has spent more time with it he can see it's flaws which I won't repeat here. Now this is pretty murky business, when a game reviewer shares a review with the world they should have completed it and if they haven't for any reason (too hard, too boring) they should clearly state this. What this means is that the review shared with the readers of PSX Extreme was disingenous. So how did he come to give a game he didn't fully play a 9/10? Perhaps it was publisher incentives or perhaps laziness and he guessed that a triple A game by a big company like Ubisoft would deserve a high score.

However since the release of his review the major opinion from other reviewers is that the game is/was broken. Ambitious but flawed by graphics and performance issues, 900p on PS4 and micro transactions. His review stands out against them as being odd and perhaps this troubled him. Now time has pass he has played the game to completion and has a different opinion that correlates more with the majority. But this should be a warning to lazy reviewers who think they can write a review without fully playing the game. All the AC:Unity reviews that came out with gushing praise certainly did raise an eyebrow from me, but reading this makes me feel disappointed in the writer and PSX Extreme because it is another example of why gamers have come to distrust the ethics of established media. I hope they now pledge to only ever review a game they've completed or at least tell their readers when they have not.

[XanderZane]

Well, he says he retracting his score, but he's not changing it. So gamers would still see the same score on other sites like Metacritic or GameRankings. Still, it probably won't matter since most gamers who use reviews to assist them in purchasing a game, use more then one site. So I doubt this guy's review would sway many gamers to purchase it. This retracting is basically to ease the reviewers conscious. Nothing more.

[pixelsword]

Did they change their review/score for Drive Club?

[fathoms]

Mr. Pumblechook: As per my statement about the absurdly self-righteous, you make my point perfectly.

Your entire post is anti-game journalism and fueled by these grand ideals that unfortunately don't - and in fact, can't - exist in the industry today. And why? Because the gamers won't allow it.

Those who have worked in the field know what I'm talking about. Unless you work for one of the major sources, you're probably on part-time pay (or even volunteer) and when busy times of the year roll around, you're working a zillion hours a week for very little money. Hence, most critics do it because they love games and of course, all they get is flak and hatred from the community for it.

You really think it's realistic for a staff of a few people to be able to play and complete over 100 games in a month? And before you start with the, "oh, we'll wait" argument, everyone knows that's crap. There's no editor on the planet that would allow this; reviews of high-profile titles absolutely have to be out ASAP if the site wants to remain competitive in the least. At the absolute maximum, you might be able to publish your review two weeks after the game launches, and that's only if the title is crazy massive (I.e., the Witcher 3).

During crunch time, even the biggest sources will admit to not having completed a game before a review because 99 percent of the time, it's completely out of the question. The bottom line is all active gaming sites want reviews of new games up as quickly as possible, you're paid next to nothing to do it (even full-time staffers at places like GameSpot have shockingly low salaries; if GameSpot or IGN or Polygon is our New York Times, we should be able to make salary comparisons but really, it's a joke), and you've got a stack of games that stretches to the ceiling that need reviews.

This isn't like finishing a movie, or listening to an entire music album, or finishing a meal at a restaurant, or even reading a big book cover to cover. We're talking about products that are well over 40-50 hours (some even longer), and MULTIPLE products of similar insane length that all come out at once. And all handled by an industry severely lacking in resources.

I assume, in your self-righteous rant there, that you have a solution to this. And I'm all ears.

[user5575708]

honestly its hard to find a good unbiased review. there's so much corruption involved with high profile games today that your best bet is playing a demo before you decide to purchase

[fathoms]

Cobra: You are correct. It is troubling but this is the way it is. Unfortunately, nobody really knows how to correct it. It has always been the problem with any sort of 100 percent digital enterprise where you're not actually selling anything:

Everything you produce is free for all. Yes, you have to be on the Internet but it's not like GameSpot gets a portion of the money you give to Comcast. All reviews are free because you don't need to have a subscription to read them. Everything on these sites is free and it's a senseless business model. If you're selling a service like Match, or you're selling actual things (ala Amazon), you'll be fine. When you're not actually selling ANYTHING, how does anyone expect things to work?

Gamers don't get this and never have. They bash critics endlessly and they have no idea what the situation is like. Pathetically low pay, absurdly long work hours (at least during the busy parts of the year, which used to only be the holiday season but that isn't really true anymore), and a consistently hostile and unappreciative group of readers.

Lastly, consider this: If you look at just about any other entertainment venue, the best-reviewed products are rarely the best-selling products in that field. Movies, music, books, etc. If you look at the top 100 best-reviewed games of all time and compare it to the top 100 best-selling games of all time, you'll see a remarkable similarity. This means one of two things: Either A. gamers rely more heavily on their critics than they want anyone to believe, or B. critics are indeed doing a fine job rewarding the best products in existence.

I'll leave you with that.

[Mr Pumblechook]

@fathoms / Ben Dukta. You write a glowing review on a game you haven't completed, then two months later you retract your review, then you come to N4G to post your retraction and get more hits for PSX Extreme, then when people comment in a way that is not complimentary you insult them!

I didn't make a personal attack on you, nor will I resort to your name calling. I said that if you review games you should at least play the whole game. Instead of trying to justify why you don't complete games that you have said you have, take a second to remember that there are plenty of writers who do complete a whole game before reviewing it, it is part of the implicit promise they make to their readers. If it's not something you can do then maybe you're not suited to the role and should find another profession.

[Dee_91]

"When you write for a gaming website, you really have to produce reviews quickly if you want to remain competitive;"

Thats an unfortunate true, however rather a game has been completed or not by the reviewer is usually what a lot of people are asking when we get day 0 reviews.These gaming publications made being dishonest and unprofessional into a competition among each other basically.Not the gamers.

@fathoms
You can't blame your unprofessionalism on the consumers.Its the journalist and editors job to remain professional and ethical regardless of what they believe gamers want.I admit, I would like to have early reviews but I would rather have a complete and honest review over an early review.You can't point the finger and say we made it this way because we gravitate to early reviews, if anything you should be pointing the finger at dishonest journalist and editors.Again I do admit that is a sticky situation but you all put yourselves there.. Or whom ever was the first gaming publication to release a day 0 review.I believe the only way to fix it would be if gamers and gaming journalist got together and made game publishers give you all earlier access.
I do commend you for this retraction but you pointing your finger at gamers for your lack of professionalism is pure BS.

"Hence, most critics do it because they love games and of course, all they get is flak and hatred from the community for it. "

Most gamers in the community get flak from gamers in the community.. S#it talking is a part of gaming.. Deal with it

"If you look at the top 100 best-reviewed games of all time and compare it to the top 100 best-selling games of all time, you'll see a remarkable similarity. This means one of two things: Either A. gamers rely more heavily on their critics than they want anyone to believe, or B. critics are indeed doing a fine job rewarding the best products in existence. "

WHAT A LOAD OF BS lol! You forgot C. Critics and gamers buy pre release hype.Which is the case for majority if not all of those 100 best selling games.I have never bought a game purely based off an review, get off your high horse dude. There are countless reasons why those two list would be similar.

[fathoms]

Mr. Pumblechook: I see. So, your analysis - dead flat wrong, but as you're omnipotent, we have to accept it - must be the only one. And I never called you any names. All I said is that you're obviously ignorant of reality and because of that, you just got mad and continued your base accusation. I already refuted it and explained why. You decided to stick with your overview, which is wildly insulting in and of itself (a symptom of every gamer alive thinking they can be a better critic than any critic alive), and that's your business.

Dee_91: I work exceedingly hard at what I do. Your accusation of unprofessionalism is also insulting. You want to live in a world where money to support these sources and critics magically appears on trees. Well, that's cool. I'm down with that. The bottom line is all this high-brow, self-righteous, "oh, I'd wait for a good review" is CRAP. If this were true, the earliest possible review for any high-profile title wouldn't hit #1 on N4G. Gamers can claim all they wish that they'd honestly wait for a review, but then they'd turn around and wonder where all the reviews are.

You want me to bring up a series of long-winded threads from various communities - N4G included - that include gamers flipping out over a lack of reviews for a new game? And of course, critics still can't win. Then it's their fault for taking too long, or there's something fishy going on because of the length of time.

Sites can only exist on traffic. The difference between a site that posts reviews on time and a site that posts reviews two months after the fact? One lives and one dies. That's the harsh truth of the matter and yes, it's the CONSUMERS that dictate this. So, the only solution, it seems, would be simply force all critics to work for free. Either that, or you and Mr. Pumblechook up there can come up with a viable business model that prevents such a difficult ecosystem.

Then again, maybe you're just SO self-righteous that if you were a critic, you'd always finish the game before issuing a review, regardless of what your boss says, regardless of the fact that it's bad for the company (i.e, the publication in question), regardless of the fact that it gives you a poor reputation...? Is that it?

"WHAT A LOAD OF BS lol! You forgot C. Critics and gamers buy pre release hype.Which is the case for majority if not all of those 100 best selling games.I have never bought a game purely based off an review, get off your high horse dude. There are countless reasons why those two list would be similar."

LOL You actually believe that? Did you know publishers give developers bonuses if the game hits a certain average on Metacritic? Why do you think that is? Gee, maybe because higher scoring games sell better? And you think there's no direct correlation between critical reception and sales? Heh...that's just too stupid to respond to. Talk about a self-righteous ego trip.

[TheOpenWorlder]

Edit

[Ohohoho]

To everyone above: Consider the criticisms and barbs you're throwing at Mr. Dutka very seriously. Think about the current state of gaming media in its entirety. In the wake of GamerGate, here we have a reviewer biting the bullet and admitting he made a mistake with his initial review, and even retracting it with solid reasons as to why.

This shows a marked level of integrity, honesty, and professional pride that is seemingly absent from the larger sources such as Kotaku, IGN, or Polygon. Think carefully before you berate a man, who is just as much a human as you or I, for an honest mistake that he is attempting to correct.

Personally speaking, I feel the gaming media scene could use more Ben Dutka's and less Ben Kuchera's. Who'd disagree with that? Beyond the the usual troll disagrees I mean.

[Dee_91]

I never said you didn't work hard.You specifically stated in the article that you were unprofessional, but when I call you unprofessional, its insulting?..Don't take it personal.I maybe could have worded it better,but what I meant was the practice is unprofessional.Not your whole body of work.I apologize if it came off that way.I'm self righteous how? I'm not a demographic, I speak for myself.I honestly haven't read a day 1 review since 2010..I don't disagree with anything you said, but you are pointing that frustration the wrong direction.Consumers only take what they are given.If you journalist and editors got together as a whole and said we will only release a review until after we have completed and discussed the game, your issues would be solved.But your too busy pointing your finger at the consumer base like they made journalist and editors do this.Thats what we call a cop out.

"LOL You actually believe that? Did you know publishers give developers bonuses if the game hits a certain average on Metacritic? Why do you think that is?"

Because they made a good game? To encourage them to make good games? For fun?

" Gee, maybe because higher scoring games sell better? "
Maybe high selling games score better?Maybe good game sell good regardless?

"And you think there's no direct correlation between critical reception and sales? Heh...that's just too stupid to respond to. Talk about a self-righteous ego trip."
Never said there was no correlation.But to say thats the core reason like you are hinting at, is stupid.You think because you are a critic, your opinion matters more.. and I'm self righteous?

@Ohohoho
I agree but blaming gamers is just stupid.Consumers take what they are given.

[Snake Raiser]

I'd give the writer some credit. I think it is important that some people who saw the review now see this as well.

Plenty of people, including me, have decided that Assassin's Creed games are not worth buying new, and we are just waiting for a price drop. I like to know what to expect, and I got to see this update.

[rezzah]

...or have become not worth buying anymore.

[lipton101]

I don't really give him any. He could have made it an amendment on the original instead of a sensational click bait article. His first thought was probably "This game sucks, but ubi gave it to me for free so I better write a positive review FAST, before everyone else to get clicks and to stay in their good graces." This person is not a journalist. His attempt at pandering failed

[Smok91]

Well, you read it and commented on it so it worked well enough.

[the_mack_attack3]

Old news is new to those who haven't seen it!

[3-4-5]

AC:Unity is a 7/10 at best...

All the good that AC4 did to restore my faith in the AC franchise was wiped away very quickly by the 15-20 hours I spent playing AC:Unity.

Didn't finish the game.....Couldn't finish the game. It's boring.

[Locknuts]

4 was a real blast. The most fun I've had with the series. People say it's not a real AC game. Well if that's not real AC, then I guess I just don't like AC.

[nyctophilia13]

Yeah I'd say a 7 is fair, and I certainly enjoyed the game. I finished it and I'm ready to jump into the free DLC this weekend.

[Kenshin_BATT0USAI]

I do think in this case it's the thought that counts. Better late than never.

[Eonjay]

Fair enough, but kudos to him for acknowledging it.

[GamersPost]

Good points, these newer games, like Assassin's Creed: Unity or Battlefield 4 require way more time, than any other Battlefield or Call of Duty before, while they don't really have much more content in them.
And the DLCs? Take a look at Europa Universalis IV or Borderlands 2. This is getting ridiculous.

As far as for reviews go, I personally play through the singleplayer of the game and then I take on the multiplayer and play with every major game mode at least once or twice (if we are speaking about Assassin's Creed or Grand Theft Auto V, not Call of Duty). Better be a little late, but not unprepared. :D

[FPSRUSSIA]

whats with all the hate with unity i know it had frame rate drops glitches but i haven't had any problems at all with it i am enjoying these game a lot almost done it to then on to the dlc

[mixelon]

I dunno, you could maybe read the article?

He isnt retracting it due to technical concerns, he's retracting it due to design descisions.

[Eamon]

At launch there were so many bugs and the framedrops would destroy any sense of immersion.

But putting all that aside, the missions aren't that great. There seems to be an overall lack of creativity. The graphics are beautiful, the cutscenes look amazing. The animation is astounding and Paris is immense. Crowds and ecosystem is top-notch.

But the story is very disappointing. Half the time, nothing made sense, and while it was supposedly set in the French Revolution, we didn't ever feel a part of it. I think Ubisoft took the criticism of Assassin's Creed III to heart a bit too much. In AC3, you felt like an errand boy for American Revolutionary figures. In ACU, you have little to nothing to do with the French Revolution. Every now and then you hear about events or you walk past it, but you're not so much engaged in them. Perhaps a target you're looking for happened to be at a place or event of historical signficance, but you never really had an effect or took part in it. Also, they did the FFXIII thing where the game dishes characters out at you and instead of building them up, they throw in a summary into the in-game encyclopedia for you to read.

And finally, the Modern-Day scenario seems to be compeltely abandoned. That disappointed me the most. With AC4 and even ACRogue, I thought Ubisoft were going to be building a new storyline. But then Unity seems to throw it out of the window. I don't know if it was because they lacked time or because Ubisoft wants to make AC their COD-style cash cow for ever, but I was not happy. Especially with AC's rich mythology and universe.

[bixxel]

Fans... READ THIS:
http://forums.ubi.com/showt...

[Kingdomcome247]

That sounds like a missed opportunity to really explore a dynamic historical time period. I have not played this as I've never been too big on the AC games. I may pick it up whenever it hits the $15-$20 price range just to explore what I hear is a beautiful recreation of Paris.

[Bobby Kotex]

I got it for free with my Xbox and waited until it was patched. I've played all the AC games and Unity is one of my favorites in the series.

I used the companion app for about 3/4ths of the game and finally uninstalled it. It's just tedious and boring and doesn't add much to the game. That's my only criticism of Unity.

[Eamon]

Well the big assassination set-piece missions are probably the only fun missions. Because you have to plan your own infiltration by searching the area and making use of "opportunities." As well as a dynamic in-building design with crowds and stuff. Those are what Ubisoft did right.

It's the other missions that bored me. I really wanted a return of the AC2/ACB/ACRev Prince of Persia style levels, but they made this time anomaly thing that didn't impress. Part of the PoP levels in AC were the mood and length. Time anomaly levels made you rush through them and weren't interesting.

[bixxel]

Count me in!

[PhucSeeker]

Nah, played a few hours of it at my friend's. And it sucks, the combat sucks, the parkour is ok, and the missions is just plain boring. The only good thing about Unity is its visual.
Though i did buy Rouge, and i fully enjoyed it.
Why they left the good combat to go with the worse one is beyond me. ACB > AC3/4/R > ACU.

[Darkxen117]

Another author that don't deserve to be a reviewer of games. Firts I don't know why people don't play a game because of some gaming site give low review to a game. I buy assassins creed unity day one and I enjoy the game very much is a very good game. And yes the game have a few bugs but nothing major,nothing that prevents you of the good experience the game offer I highly recommend this game. Assassins creed unity deserve a 9 out of 10. And now that ubisoft fix the few bugs deserve more than ever that score.

[mixelon]

Bugs aten't why he retracted the review.. Yet you call him undeserving (whatever that means) of being a reviewer. Wha. It's not like you seem to care about anything other than the score.

" In regards to the obvious technical issues, I can only say that they never bothered me too much; this retraction is not due to those problems."

[jholden3249]

Had nothing to do with bugs. Read the article before posting next time, please.

[Der_Kommandant]

I wish i could retract myself for buying the game 2 months ago

[ziggurcat]

having gotten the platinum trophy for this game on PS4, i can kind of see where the author is coming from.

although, the only thing that really irked me was that there are artefacts that you allegedly collect during the helix sequences that are only available to collect once you have spent an obscene amount of time in the unnecessary companion app. these artefacts are, for whatever hair-brained reason, included in the overall progress of the core game when you look at the progression tracker. it makes no sense considering that there are chests that you can only open after playing the companion app that are not included in the core game's progression tracker.

i'm sad to say that if they continue to pull those kinds of stunts, this might easily be the last AC game i ever play. achieving 100% completion of the core game should never, ever be affected by some wasteful peripheral application that's completely optional to begin with.

[KiwiViper85]

Ye that's the only thing missing from my progression screen too. Had it stopped me getting 1000gs i wouldve been pissed.

[ziggurcat]

yes, that would have been really upsetting, and it's the only thing that kept me from actually getting angry rather than just irked.

[clouds5]

All that extra stuff exists not because ubisoft wanted to add interesting gameplay or new ideas. No it exists because it generates money. And that is the issue.
Whenever money is the focus, quality will suffer.

[NickAwesome]

Finally, it's time we stand up to ubisoft bullshit, good job man! good job

[ab5olut10n]

"When you write for a gaming website, you really have to produce reviews quickly if you want to remain competitive; whether gamers don't understand this or don't wish to accept it, I don't know."

Maybe we don't want reviews treated like a competition?

Take your time.
Be thorough.
Be objective.

If your opinion is worthwhile, we'll wait to hear it.

[DemonSlayer420]

well said +bubble

[fathoms]

Baloney. Sites only exist with traffic, and you only get that traffic by issuing reviews as soon as possible. The site that waits to produce all their reviews has resigned itself to volunteer writers and no income whatsoever.

We all wish it wasn't like this (and it shouldn't be) but this is the digital world.

[ab5olut10n]

Then maybe you should find a different line of work, because you're doing it wrong. Next time just write "First!" and then pat yourself on the back.

[Fairchild Channel F]

"Then maybe you should find a different line of work, because you're doing it wrong. Next time just write "First!" and then pat yourself on the back."

WELL F'n SAID! Maybe a job at a tissue company. They may give him free tissues to dry all the tears gushing from his eyes.

@Fathoms
Thanks for convincing me to never visit your site. You do your job well. Congrats!

[ginsunuva]

If only reviewers finished Mass Effect 3 before scoring it.

[jeenyus]

Never heard of this site, why is this on the front page?
Does it feed the senseless hate towards corporations?

[ginganinja]

Ultimately, the review should be an opinion of the authors time with the game. You got to be honest and own it.
If issues come up later then stick a note onto the review. It'd be more honest to say something along the lines of, 'look, this is my opinion of the game I played but I think it'd prudent to mention this which you may factor into your purchasing decision.'
Otherwise, come your next review, the reader might well ask, 'Is this valid, or are you going to change your mind about this later as well?'

[brewin]

It's sad that Ubi botched this so bad, cuz the game is actually pretty good and very ambitious. It's just missing a good layer of polish, and that micro transaction stuff is wack. But the game itself is great once you take into account that its more of an extension of the AC 1 and 2 style. You don't have to do all the co op stuff or opt into that micr trans stuff, I don't do any of that and don't feel like I'm missing out on anything. IMHO, even with the issues, its still much better than part 3 or Black Flag, and feels more like a true AC game than either of those.

[Iamnemesis4880]

Hopefully with the unity problems Ubisoft will realise making two AC games in one year was a massive stuff up. I like the free run controls in unity but want the disarm button for combat back it is a lot more fun than what unity has and there is a simple fix with that in the menu under settings the sub menu control layout select combat setup choice classic ac or new.

[A LIVING LEGEND]

No big deal in my world,it's not like we are curing cancer,it's a video game.
AC games aren't really worth the debate anyways,better reserved for something worthwhile.

I'm personally guilty of score retraction constantly,example DA Inquisition;my first impression was 'hey cool,I'm with the 8/10 crowd on this one.Great game.
By the end I'm saying meh and throwing around 6's and wondering why a 5/10 isn't actually unfair.

Either way,retract I say and live to be disappointed another day.

[Activemessiah]

Really hope people dont buy the next one just to teach them a lesson.

[Demonneno]

For those who think it's too late - do you really believe any review site tries to platinum a game? It's one thing to play through it, doing what's necessary, and trying out various side quests for the sake of sampling what they offer (redundancy, skills, and whether it's completely pointless for progression).

This is unique as he obviously cared enough to continue playing. It's unique because the single player campaign isn't just attached to the co-op, but an app as well. He could have avoided this article, but obviously wrote it for the sake of his passion and our knowledge.

It definitely enlightened me about the game and am now anticipating to live with the shortcomings on my play through.

It's more of an editorial following up his experience and, for that, I thank him.

[Knightshade]

And the best part is that...you CAN'T pull your review. Sure, you can remove it or change it on your site, but if it's on Metacritic, it's forever. It sucks, but it's their policy.

[fathoms]

These days, given the increasingly fluid nature of games, I don't think that's a very good policy.

[Knightshade]

I absolutely and entirely agree, but several conversations with management on their side has not yielded positive results. The review that goes live is permanent and forever. :/

[Kavorklestein]

Yeah, like the one really bad review for the movie Interstellar tainting it's overall score when it deserves one of the highest metacritic scores ever given to a film.

[WizzroSupreme]

Good to hear, man. Rock on.

[Knushwood Butt]

Never pay attention to reviews anyway.

Currently loving Driveclub.

[kurruptor]

The things he complained about in this stupid rant are just whiney and idiotic.

I was expecting it to be about the glitches, but that would have been weeks late.

[Freeball]

I feel no need to give kudos to someone for updating what was a half-ass job in the first place. It's amusing that this "journalist" is calling people self-righteous for not pitying him and celebrating his "integrity". I accept that gaming media today is as crooked and unprofessional as he states, but is that something that should be used as justification? The old, "everybody's doing it" excuse? Don't blame gamers or other critics for your lack of ethical integrity; man up and accept the heat.

Poor you, you need to play a bunch of games to review them for your site. Work is hard, that's why it's called work, and nobody is making you do it for a living. If you don't like it, go find something else to do to feed your family.

[nytebyrd]

Its a universal trend in the media, business, etc, for these people to blame the consumers for them forsaking their responsibility and integrity. I wonder how well it would go over if a surgeon blamed the patient for him removing a persons left kidney rather than performing a heart transplant. After all, the patient is in a hurry for the service. Hyperbole, but no more so than what these individuals and groups are doing.

Should we believe that this one critic who got caught with their pants around their ankles simply made a mistake? A mistake would be missing a hidden set of side missions that were broken and undermined the story. The problem is these people aren't held accountable.

Another poster wrote that they have to review 100 different games at any one time. Pretty funny. You'd have to be reviewing every indy, rerelease, hd remake, b and aaa game released to hit that mark. Lets face it, thats not happening. Worse, management would be utterly failing as with even 2-3 writers it would be delegated down to a fraction of that per person, per year. Sounds more like a freelance writer focusing on quantity over quality.

I don't believe any of these situations I mentioned would make me feel sympathetic to the writer. It's really no different than the NY Times releasing the names and addresses of innocent relatives to violent criminals. Or CNN putting a guy on the air who claims to be a member of the military, never check their credentials and then putting them on the air so they can say Howard Stern launched the missiles from his anus.

You want respect for doing your job, do it right. Don't make excuses why you can't, because its your job to find a way to do so.

[kenwonobi]

You already gave it a terrible review score of 9. Which is so astronomically high compared o all other reviews of this horrid game already. Kinda weird and damage done already. Did they not pay you for the review or did the check bounce?