20mm's thread in the community forum got me thinking... if you noticed, (at least with me and the land and armor reviews I do), it is usually about 2 months maybe even 3 before a review is done... reason, because of limit play and test time because of real life issues, but sometimes 2 or 3 months seem just to long.

On the one hand if we wait, take our time, and test and play the game to heck... then you get a better and more detailed review.

but on the other, some people may be waiting for a SimHQ review to decide if they should spend there money, or want info about the game ASAP, this would make the reviewer do a review in like 3 to 5 days, but I never thought you can do a good review in that time, the better option would be more of a hands on impressions article.

and then again, some could care less and usually know what they want before the game even comes out, lol.


my question...in the poll, which would you prefer?

I like both simply because I know it takes time to do a review, and I'd hate to see it rushed for the sake of "getting it out the door." However, I'd hate to wait 2 weeks for a review only to find it glowing and then think "why didn't I get this when it came out??"
First impressions are for confirming a positive opinion you already have, or a negative opinion you already have. If you were leaning towards buying it, but weren't 100% certain, a positive first impression will convince you. If you were NOT leaning towards buying it, a full review would likely be needed to sway you.
Likewise, if you thought a game was going to suck, a negative first impression will confirm that and you'll write it off. That way you don't have to wait weeks just to find out you were right.

In other words, I think a first impression should offer a quick "thumbs up/down" with a few details like what if any MP modes are offered and how they feel, any possible installation headaches, etc, just so people who were planning on buying it don't "get burned" by a buggy release or an unexpectedly poor release (Whirlwind of Vietnam, looking at you!!!)

The full review can then take on various areas in detail and cover the whole game without glossing over features.



The Jedi Master

I like the idea of having both.

It's sorta like reading a game "Preview" in a magazine like PC Gamer or online from a site like GameSpot or IGN.

The problem with waiting 2-3 months before getting a full review is that 90% of the people that might be interested in the game will have already bought it by then.

But, if you can get a quick preview out (within a week of release) that might go a long way towards helping people make up their minds about whether to purchase or not.

Voted both. I like to see what you think after playing it once or twice. First impressions and all that.
Full detailed review i like to see what you thought of the overall game. (multiplayer etc)

I voted both too, but I think a week is too little time - especially if that means an impression after one or two plays. Maybe within 1 month? I agree with Leeman that 3 months later a 'normal' review is not of much interest. On the other hand 'late' reviews of games where someone has liked it and that go into detail about gameplay, strategy, tactics etc are my favourites and I've bought a few games that I'd never heard of before as a result of things like that.

Have fun
Finn

I voted both.

How much time does a first impression really require anyway? It gives the user base something to read, which should contain a basic idea of what to expect. A review may be a bit more technical, and is great to have in the long run, but takes more time to finalize, and requires the user base to wait a bit longer for what is, essentially, a more detailed "first impression" anyway...

I voted for #1. I like reading all the details in a game review.

Yes, but the point is would you really want to wait that long before buying it if it was a game you were planning on playing MP with people? Wait a couple of months and people will already be moving on to mods and such when you're just getting it.

Full reviews I feel are necessary for games you maybe didn't really plan on getting. Sure you pick it up later than others, but if it's SP that doesn't matter, and if it's MP while you're late to the party, you weren't even planning on attending originally anyway!
As an example, would you have wanted to wait until this weekend, now that Mag's review is out, to get GRAW2? You've already had and played it for a few weeks now.




The Jedi Master

I voted both but if I had to pick one it would be full review.

If I could only pick one, I'd pick the "first impressions".

Reason being, a full review coming out 3 months late would be of no use to me whatsoever. Odds are that I'd either a) already have the game by then, or b) have read a half dozen other full reviews on the game.

I'd simply rather get a smaller, less detailed review quickly than to get a full review well after the interest has likely died down.

Hey Magnum,

I appreciate what you have done with GRAW2 - a full review but some first impressions style stuff on the forum. I would definately prefer to have a full review late rather than a first impression early, but I live in Australia, and by the time the game comes out here you are usually putting up the review shortly anyways

Torq'