That gaming journalists get "paid off" by developers to give good reviews is the most ignorant bullshit held by some of the forumers here. Journalism, even gaming journalism, places ethics as one of its highest authorities. If an editor would indeed be paid off, you can bet his ass would be fired in a heartbeat by the higher ups...
That gaming journalists get "paid off" by developers to give good reviews is the most ignorant bullshit held by some of the forumers here. Journalism, even gaming journalism, places ethics as one of its highest authorities. If an editor would indeed be paid off, you can bet his ass would be fired in a heartbeat by the higher ups...
I'd like to live in your world. One ticket please.
That gaming journalists get "paid off" by developers to give good reviews is the most ignorant bullshit held by some of the forumers here. Journalism, even gaming journalism, places ethics as one of its highest authorities. If an editor would indeed be paid off, you can bet his ass would be fired in a heartbeat by the higher ups...
Are we talking about the same kind of journalism that posts rumors as real news such as the Wii specs Cass put up and in which blogs can be considered a legitimate site?
That gaming journalists get "paid off" by developers to give good reviews is the most ignorant bullshit held by some of the forumers here. Journalism, even gaming journalism, places ethics as one of its highest authorities. If an editor would indeed be paid off, you can bet his ass would be fired in a heartbeat by the higher ups...
I'd like to live in your world. One ticket please.
No way. Driv3r earned that 9 through the merits of its gameplay.
Do you think that a developer ships a game the game along with a little envelope filled with twenty dollar bills or something? A little man in a raincoat and hat stops at an editors apartment and hands him a check? Explain to me how you all just know that these people get paid off.
If this ridiculous circumstance WERE to occur, the magazine or site would fucking report it...their entire magazine or site is on the line here. Only it never happens, because it's just a myth propagated by internet videogame geeks...
I didn't mind Greg. But let me chime in with the Jeff hate. And it isn't about the Twilight Princess review. Fuck, I wasn't at all surprised when I saw who was reviewing it, looked at the score and then down at the thumbnail you had to click to get to the video review.
To be fair, he's the guy that gave Ocarina of Time one of their only perfect 10s, so the notion that he somehow set out to sabatoge TP is a bit ridiculous. His criticism was that Twilight Princess is basically Ocarina 2, and while that's not necessarily a bad thing, he's absolutely right.
Ever play any fighting game ever? Or hell, even previous Zelda games? You can win fights just by mashing buttons.
1) You play shitty fighting games.
2) On Zelda: No shit, genius, because there's one attack button.
1)Street Fighter is shitty? King of Fighters is silly? Virtua Fighter? Tekken? All I claimed is that one CAN win fights this way, genius.
2)Yes and for swinging the sword in zelda, there is only one input as well (swinging or non swinging). But thanks for re-iterating my point there, genius.
That gaming journalists get "paid off" by developers to give good reviews is the most ignorant bullshit held by some of the forumers here. Journalism, even gaming journalism, places ethics as one of its highest authorities. If an editor would indeed be paid off, you can bet his ass would be fired in a heartbeat by the higher ups...
I'd like to live in your world. One ticket please.
No way. Driv3r earned that 9 through the merits of its gameplay.
It is no easy task winning a 1v3. You must jump many a hurdle, bettering three armies, the smallest.
Aye, no mere man may win an uphill battle against thrice your men, it takes a courageous heart and will that makes steel look like copper. When you are that, then, and only then, may you win a 1v3.
Do you think that a developer ships a game the game along with a little envelope filled with twenty dollar bills or something? A little man in a raincoat and hat stops at an editors apartment and hands him a check? Explain to me how you all just know that these people get paid off.
If this ridiculous circumstance WERE to occur, the magazine or site would fucking report it...their entire magazine or site is on the line here. Only it never happens, because it's just a myth propagated by internet videogame geeks...
Be realistic. Christ...
From what I heard, it isn't bribes that swerve reviews, but rather punishment for negative reviews... Slam a bad score on that Generic FPS by Company X, Company X will make sure to not send you a preview copy of Darn Spiffy and Quite Anticipated RPG...
Wow what a bunch of haters. Seriously. In my year and a half of working for Future US, writing for GamesRadar and PC Gamer, the closest I ever came to being "paid off" was some free pizza at a preview event.
If you think that reviewers are being lavished with free stuff (besides crappy games that they don't really want) or money, then you are seriously deluded. Slogging away full time for 35K a year or turning in freelance reviews for $150 a pop seems like quite the opposite of getting rich for turning in paid-off reviews (do the math on getting $150 for 10-20 --or more-- hours of work). In fact, most game reviewers simply write for gaming sites because they simply love gaming, plain and simple. And before you go thinking that 35-45k for full time work is well-paid, remember that the games media industry (in the US, at least) is based in San Francisco, one of the very most expensive places to live in the entire country. Shit, I made more money in college.
Game reviewers can certainly help in the development, QA, and production values for games in development, and are often tapped for these kind of jobs. They are certainly expert in writing -- and I think everyone will agree that crappy writing of the biggest areas for improvement in today's games.
To respond to another poster who questioned the accuracy that folks from the media "often" migrate to game development besides Greg, well I know that Bill Harms left PC Gamer this year to produce for a strategy gaming company (his area of expertise), and Andy Eddy has pitched in to various companies looking for advice on production. In fact, I'm surprised that no one mentioned Mike and Jerry's current production of Penny-Arcade Adventures -- what bigger game critics can there be?
As for me, I've gone into gaming hardware production full-time as of Jan 1. I was a crappy writer anyways.
Ever play any fighting game ever? Or hell, even previous Zelda games? You can win fights just by mashing buttons.
1) You play shitty fighting games.
2) On Zelda: No shit, genius, because there's one attack button.
1)Street Fighter is shitty? King of Fighters is silly? Virtua Fighter? Tekken? All I claimed is that one CAN win fights this way, genius.
2)Yes and for swinging the sword in zelda, there is only one input as well (swinging or non swinging). But thanks for re-iterating my point there, genius.
1). Then the people you play have a pitiful understanding of the mechanics of said games.
Here's some free advice to any game company that might be listening. There are only two things you need to ask to figure out if your game is good or not.
1.) Is your game fun?
2.) If your game is fun, is it stable enough to stay fun?
1) Of course it's fun if we made it!
2) I can easily see myself playing it after 5 years.
Well. With those questions answered I guess we don't need an outside opinion anymore.
---
Ehh, hm. I misunderstood #2.
Still. When you're close to the game you do start to slowly ignore both the not fun parts as well as the actual bugs.
"Of course the major crash on reloading the shotgun doesn't bother me... I never reload my shotgun anymore."
#3 would be "Can new players understand what the hell they're supposed to do?"
Best way to answer that is to just get some new players and have em play without interfering.
Ever play any fighting game ever? Or hell, even previous Zelda games? You can win fights just by mashing buttons.
1) You play shitty fighting games.
2) On Zelda: No shit, genius, because there's one attack button.
1)Street Fighter is shitty? King of Fighters is silly? Virtua Fighter? Tekken? All I claimed is that one CAN win fights this way, genius.
2)Yes and for swinging the sword in zelda, there is only one input as well (swinging or non swinging). But thanks for re-iterating my point there, genius.
1). Then the people you play have a pitiful understanding of the mechanics of said games.
1) You assume too much. I never said "you can beat a competent player" I said you can win fights. Can a button masher in any of those games I mentioned beat a highly skilled opponent? Unlikely. But they can often beat computer players or poor players.
The same way, I would argue, that one could not beat some of the harder Zelda enemies by just swinging the controller at random. Although yes, conceivably one could have success against weaker creatures utilizing such a tactic.
Kasavin leaving GameSpot means that any credibility the site had is now gone, as well.
I mean he was the head editor for the site. Every single story, review, or feature was probably ok'd by him. I have this feeling he was the one thing holding the site back from becoming IGN.
I didn't agree with everything he said, but I personally think his reviews were usually pretty damn good.
Ever play any fighting game ever? Or hell, even previous Zelda games? You can win fights just by mashing buttons.
1) You play shitty fighting games.
2) On Zelda: No shit, genius, because there's one attack button.
1)Street Fighter is shitty? King of Fighters is silly? Virtua Fighter? Tekken? All I claimed is that one CAN win fights this way, genius.
2)Yes and for swinging the sword in zelda, there is only one input as well (swinging or non swinging). But thanks for re-iterating my point there, genius.
1). Then the people you play have a pitiful understanding of the mechanics of said games.
They are certainly expert in writing -- and I think everyone will agree that crappy writing of the biggest areas for improvement in today's games.
I will argue until my last breath that a game reviewer who is an 'expert' in writing is absolutely the exception and not the rule. Further, their technical writing ability in no way extends to their creative ability to brainstorm and express original dramatic content. If a reviewer becomes a good game maker, I say it's in spite of, not because of, his time as a reviewer.
I'm going to give this guy a chance before shitting all over his parade. I realize that, to the internet, it's like swimming upstream but you never know.
They are certainly expert in writing -- and I think everyone will agree that crappy writing of the biggest areas for improvement in today's games.
I will argue until my last breath that a game reviewer who is an 'expert' in writing is absolutely the exception and not the rule. Further, their technical writing ability in no way extends to their creative ability to brainstorm and express original dramatic content. If a reviewer becomes a good game maker, I say it's in spite of, not because of, his time as a reviewer.
I think that you are missing my point. The quantitative level of the majority of today's game reviewers writing skills may be up for debate, but it usually far exceeds the quality of writing present in most games today. That is something I think most people can agree on. Not every developer can be BioWare. The sad fact is, writers come very, very cheaply and there is literally no excuse.
Game reviewers see and play a crapload more games than the public at large, to a staggering degree--even the hardcore. As a reviewer, you naturally look at games that you wouldn't normally consider, and your knowledge base is constantly challenged and enlarged. Continually you are forced to compare and contrast games, measure them against current and past offerings in (and out) of their respective genres, strip away what you didn't like, and reveal what was great--about 10X a week.
Reviewers are in a pretty unique position to immediately see shortcomings and "easy mistakes" that game developers continually make because of the constant barrage of new games coming at them. I think that they are also qualified to guide developers through the delicate balance of offering more features without breaking the original game--or not offering enough--in the face of so many sequels today.
Ever play any fighting game ever? Or hell, even previous Zelda games? You can win fights just by mashing buttons.
1) You play shitty fighting games.
2) On Zelda: No shit, genius, because there's one attack button.
1)Street Fighter is shitty? King of Fighters is silly? Virtua Fighter? Tekken? All I claimed is that one CAN win fights this way, genius.
2)Yes and for swinging the sword in zelda, there is only one input as well (swinging or non swinging). But thanks for re-iterating my point there, genius.
1). Then the people you play have a pitiful understanding of the mechanics of said games.
Seriously, you CAN win against people who don't know what they are doing. They may THINK they do, but really they most likely don't. Fighting games bring out huge amounts of egos in everyone, smashing most of them down is part of the fun at actually being good at fighters. The same way I can "win" Metal Slug with infinite continues and pressing nothing but the grenade button and forward.
They are certainly expert in writing -- and I think everyone will agree that crappy writing of the biggest areas for improvement in today's games.
I will argue until my last breath that a game reviewer who is an 'expert' in writing is absolutely the exception and not the rule. Further, their technical writing ability in no way extends to their creative ability to brainstorm and express original dramatic content. If a reviewer becomes a good game maker, I say it's in spite of, not because of, his time as a reviewer.
I think that you are missing my point. The quantitative level of the majority of today's game reviewers writing skills may be up for debate, but it usually far exceeds the quality of writing present in most games today. That is something I think most people can agree on. Not every developer can be BioWare. The sad fact is, writers come very, very cheaply and there is literally no excuse.
Game reviewers see and play a crapload more games than the public at large, to a staggering degree--even the hardcore. As a reviewer, you naturally look at games that you wouldn't normally consider, and your knowledge base is constantly challenged and enlarged. Continually you are forced to compare and contrast games, measure them against current and past offerings in (and out) of their respective genres, strip away what you didn't like, and reveal what was great--about 10X a week.
Reviewers are in a pretty unique position to immediately see shortcomings and "easy mistakes" that game developers continually make because of the constant barrage of new games coming at them. I think that they are also qualified to guide developers through the delicate balance of offering more features without breaking the original game--or not offering enough--in the face of so many sequels today.
I think the wise sage, Mitch Hedberg, nailed this concept on the head:
'You're a really good chef. Can you farm?'
It's too completely different animals, even if they seem so close to each other, it hurts.
And his original point for the joke works, too. He was talking about how people wanted him to write a comedy script since he was a comedian. He's exactly right.
Yes, I see your point. People should never, ever change careers, since they can never succeed at the new one.
*looks about for newspaper satchel*
That's not really the point, the point is that people expect quality out of the new career, because 'they can't be that much different!'
It's a huge change to go from writing about videogames, to creating them. If there's one thing that could definitely come out of it, it would be that Greg Kasavin would look at games in a much different light after aiding a team in creating one.
I think you're disagreeing with something other than what he's saying. I think I probably disagree with the same thing that you do.
That is, if someone claimed that a person who's good about writing critically about something creative is naturally going to be good at the creation, I would disagree--I don't think the two skills are mutually exclusive, but I don't think anybody would exhibit both talents at any greater than random chance frequency.
What I think Storm Shadow is saying is that an experienced game reviewer can offer a game development team a lot of insight into "what not to do". Or, put another way, an experienced game critic could help a development team avoid a lot of potential pitfalls. I know from experience that when you're involved in some kind of long-term creative project with a lot of different people involved, it can be invaluable to have someone else come in with a fresh perspective to give you an objective opinion on where things are headed. When you're in the middle of the creative process, it can be easy to get lost in minutia and not realize you're making some obvious, broad mistakes--the "can't see the forest for the trees" phenomenon.
But I don't think anybody could convince me that talent/experience at writing about games will really translate at all to writing games themselves. Maybe, I dunno, 5% of that talent/experience would translate, depending on the genre and tone of the game in question. Maybe more, maybe less.
Ever play any fighting game ever? Or hell, even previous Zelda games? You can win fights just by mashing buttons.
1) You play shitty fighting games.
2) On Zelda: No shit, genius, because there's one attack button.
1)Street Fighter is shitty? King of Fighters is silly? Virtua Fighter? Tekken? All I claimed is that one CAN win fights this way, genius.
2)Yes and for swinging the sword in zelda, there is only one input as well (swinging or non swinging). But thanks for re-iterating my point there, genius.
First off,
Tekken?
Yes.
Anyway--in one of those instances where you might win a fighting game match by mashing, or flail your thumbs around to get through a portion of Zelda, it's always "holy shit was I lucky." But when playing something like, say, Twilight Princess on the Wii, madly flinging the remote side-to-side is actually one of the better ways to make sure you make the most of your slashing speed. I do prefer the motion-controls to buttons, but there's still something that doesn't feel right about that.
But, most of these things actually bug me because a comparison is even possible at all (though Zelda's exempt from that particular gripe, for being a GC game). I can't think of a Wii game out right now that doesn't do something that plenty of other previous consoles have already done, only in a different way. I want to see more things that are literally impossible to pull off with a normal controller. Thankfully, I do have Wario Ware and Mario Galaxy to look forward to (I count Mario Galaxy because, even though pointer-type controls have been around on the DS for ages now, juggling them with comfortable controls for a platformer has been impossible before Wii).
I think you're disagreeing with something other than what he's saying. I think I probably disagree with the same thing that you do.
That is, if someone claimed that a person who's good about writing critically about something creative is naturally going to be good at the creation, I would disagree--I don't think the two skills are mutually exclusive, but I don't think anybody would exhibit both talents at any greater than random chance frequency.
What I think Storm Shadow is saying is that an experienced game reviewer can offer a game development team a lot of insight into "what not to do". Or, put another way, an experienced game critic could help a development team avoid a lot of potential pitfalls. I know from experience that when you're involved in some kind of long-term creative project with a lot of different people involved, it can be invaluable to have someone else come in with a fresh perspective to give you an objective opinion on where things are headed. When you're in the middle of the creative process, it can be easy to get lost in minutia and not realize you're making some obvious, broad mistakes--the "can't see the forest for the trees" phenomenon.
But I don't think anybody could convince me that talent/experience at writing about games will really translate at all to writing games themselves. Maybe, I dunno, 5% of that talent/experience would translate, depending on the genre and tone of the game in question. Maybe more, maybe less.
If that is what he's saying, all I would say is that if I were a game developer with numerous contacts throughout the industry, a game reviewer is one of the people I'd go to for advice, to be perfectly honest.
Especially those that only spend like 10 minutes with a game because of job deadlines and such.
It's amazing how you know how certain games journalists work to such detail! Have you ever set foot in a publishing house?
No but I read the internets and have seen quite a few reviews in my time.
Assuming there are deadlines due to the amount of reviewing that needs to be done, it's clear from certain reviews that the reviewer had limited time with a game and doesn't know it as in-depth as they should.
Don't try to correct someone for their ignorance if you're gonna spout stuff like this too. It's hypocritical.
Oh, get off it. It's the way people start treating this place like some self-gratifying debate club that makes us look so elitist to the other boards. Someone asks me if I think a game is shitty, I'll tell them I do. Rest assured I'm not the only one. If you want to spite me, go play it and have fun.
Don't try to correct someone for their ignorance if you're gonna spout stuff like this too. It's hypocritical.
Oh, get off it. It's the way people start treating this place like some self-gratifying debate club that makes us look so elitist to the other boards. Someone asks me if I think a game is shitty, I'll tell them I do. Rest assured I'm not the only one. If you want to spite me, go play it and have fun.
Well, you ARE entitled to your opinion.
But it's a pretty shitty review, probably brought on by a lack of time to understand the system, and I wouldn't trust you in the development of a 3D fighting game.
Posts
I'd like to live in your world. One ticket please.
quit picking on the kid with glasses and a funny voice.
If this ridiculous circumstance WERE to occur, the magazine or site would fucking report it...their entire magazine or site is on the line here. Only it never happens, because it's just a myth propagated by internet videogame geeks...
Be realistic. Christ...
1)Street Fighter is shitty? King of Fighters is silly? Virtua Fighter? Tekken? All I claimed is that one CAN win fights this way, genius.
2)Yes and for swinging the sword in zelda, there is only one input as well (swinging or non swinging). But thanks for re-iterating my point there, genius.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/BlindProphet
From what I heard, it isn't bribes that swerve reviews, but rather punishment for negative reviews... Slam a bad score on that Generic FPS by Company X, Company X will make sure to not send you a preview copy of Darn Spiffy and Quite Anticipated RPG...
If you think that reviewers are being lavished with free stuff (besides crappy games that they don't really want) or money, then you are seriously deluded. Slogging away full time for 35K a year or turning in freelance reviews for $150 a pop seems like quite the opposite of getting rich for turning in paid-off reviews (do the math on getting $150 for 10-20 --or more-- hours of work). In fact, most game reviewers simply write for gaming sites because they simply love gaming, plain and simple. And before you go thinking that 35-45k for full time work is well-paid, remember that the games media industry (in the US, at least) is based in San Francisco, one of the very most expensive places to live in the entire country. Shit, I made more money in college.
Game reviewers can certainly help in the development, QA, and production values for games in development, and are often tapped for these kind of jobs. They are certainly expert in writing -- and I think everyone will agree that crappy writing of the biggest areas for improvement in today's games.
To respond to another poster who questioned the accuracy that folks from the media "often" migrate to game development besides Greg, well I know that Bill Harms left PC Gamer this year to produce for a strategy gaming company (his area of expertise), and Andy Eddy has pitched in to various companies looking for advice on production. In fact, I'm surprised that no one mentioned Mike and Jerry's current production of Penny-Arcade Adventures -- what bigger game critics can there be?
As for me, I've gone into gaming hardware production full-time as of Jan 1. I was a crappy writer anyways.
1). Then the people you play have a pitiful understanding of the mechanics of said games.
2) I can easily see myself playing it after 5 years.
Well. With those questions answered I guess we don't need an outside opinion anymore.
---
Ehh, hm. I misunderstood #2.
Still. When you're close to the game you do start to slowly ignore both the not fun parts as well as the actual bugs.
"Of course the major crash on reloading the shotgun doesn't bother me... I never reload my shotgun anymore."
#3 would be "Can new players understand what the hell they're supposed to do?"
Best way to answer that is to just get some new players and have em play without interfering.
1) You assume too much. I never said "you can beat a competent player" I said you can win fights. Can a button masher in any of those games I mentioned beat a highly skilled opponent? Unlikely. But they can often beat computer players or poor players.
The same way, I would argue, that one could not beat some of the harder Zelda enemies by just swinging the controller at random. Although yes, conceivably one could have success against weaker creatures utilizing such a tactic.
Thank you for further solidifying my point.
I mean he was the head editor for the site. Every single story, review, or feature was probably ok'd by him. I have this feeling he was the one thing holding the site back from becoming IGN.
I didn't agree with everything he said, but I personally think his reviews were usually pretty damn good.
XBL: QuazarX
you can mash your way to victory against the CPU
I think that you are missing my point. The quantitative level of the majority of today's game reviewers writing skills may be up for debate, but it usually far exceeds the quality of writing present in most games today. That is something I think most people can agree on. Not every developer can be BioWare. The sad fact is, writers come very, very cheaply and there is literally no excuse.
Game reviewers see and play a crapload more games than the public at large, to a staggering degree--even the hardcore. As a reviewer, you naturally look at games that you wouldn't normally consider, and your knowledge base is constantly challenged and enlarged. Continually you are forced to compare and contrast games, measure them against current and past offerings in (and out) of their respective genres, strip away what you didn't like, and reveal what was great--about 10X a week.
Reviewers are in a pretty unique position to immediately see shortcomings and "easy mistakes" that game developers continually make because of the constant barrage of new games coming at them. I think that they are also qualified to guide developers through the delicate balance of offering more features without breaking the original game--or not offering enough--in the face of so many sequels today.
Anyways, just my two cents.
Seriously, you CAN win against people who don't know what they are doing. They may THINK they do, but really they most likely don't. Fighting games bring out huge amounts of egos in everyone, smashing most of them down is part of the fun at actually being good at fighters. The same way I can "win" Metal Slug with infinite continues and pressing nothing but the grenade button and forward.
'You're a really good chef. Can you farm?'
It's too completely different animals, even if they seem so close to each other, it hurts.
*flails*
*looks about for newspaper satchel*
That's not really the point, the point is that people expect quality out of the new career, because 'they can't be that much different!'
It's a huge change to go from writing about videogames, to creating them. If there's one thing that could definitely come out of it, it would be that Greg Kasavin would look at games in a much different light after aiding a team in creating one.
That is, if someone claimed that a person who's good about writing critically about something creative is naturally going to be good at the creation, I would disagree--I don't think the two skills are mutually exclusive, but I don't think anybody would exhibit both talents at any greater than random chance frequency.
What I think Storm Shadow is saying is that an experienced game reviewer can offer a game development team a lot of insight into "what not to do". Or, put another way, an experienced game critic could help a development team avoid a lot of potential pitfalls. I know from experience that when you're involved in some kind of long-term creative project with a lot of different people involved, it can be invaluable to have someone else come in with a fresh perspective to give you an objective opinion on where things are headed. When you're in the middle of the creative process, it can be easy to get lost in minutia and not realize you're making some obvious, broad mistakes--the "can't see the forest for the trees" phenomenon.
But I don't think anybody could convince me that talent/experience at writing about games will really translate at all to writing games themselves. Maybe, I dunno, 5% of that talent/experience would translate, depending on the genre and tone of the game in question. Maybe more, maybe less.
First off,
Yes.
Anyway--in one of those instances where you might win a fighting game match by mashing, or flail your thumbs around to get through a portion of Zelda, it's always "holy shit was I lucky." But when playing something like, say, Twilight Princess on the Wii, madly flinging the remote side-to-side is actually one of the better ways to make sure you make the most of your slashing speed. I do prefer the motion-controls to buttons, but there's still something that doesn't feel right about that.
But, most of these things actually bug me because a comparison is even possible at all (though Zelda's exempt from that particular gripe, for being a GC game). I can't think of a Wii game out right now that doesn't do something that plenty of other previous consoles have already done, only in a different way. I want to see more things that are literally impossible to pull off with a normal controller. Thankfully, I do have Wario Ware and Mario Galaxy to look forward to (I count Mario Galaxy because, even though pointer-type controls have been around on the DS for ages now, juggling them with comfortable controls for a platformer has been impossible before Wii).
Don't try to correct someone for their ignorance if you're gonna spout stuff like this too. It's hypocritical.
Anywho,
Game reviews can make me sick to my stomach from how bad they are...
So yeah, I wouldn't trust a reviewer at all. Especially those that only spend like 10 minutes with a game because of job deadlines and such.
It's amazing how you know how games journalists work to such detail! Have you ever set foot in a publishing house?
Assuming there are deadlines due to the amount of reviewing that needs to be done, it's clear from certain reviews that the reviewer had limited time with a game and doesn't know it as in-depth as they should.
But it's a pretty shitty review, probably brought on by a lack of time to understand the system, and I wouldn't trust you in the development of a 3D fighting game.