Again, your experience lends weight to your arguments but I still disagree. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> Of course, a review is *always* subjective by definition but if the reviewer has not finished the game they can not attest to the balance, challenge or quality past the point played and for some games this is an important issue - Im happy to call that "accuracy". However, I accept it may not be possible to finish games in practice for commercial reasons.
In addition to these practices, print mags have serious problems with lead time and space allocation. I don't mean to personalise this but the BD review at CVG is an excellent example. Leaving aside the naming error and dubious value of the introductory paragraph, it's really too short to be of much value. What does it tell me about the gameplay? From my brief time with the BD demo, the introduction of the Death Knight makes quite a big impact on gameplay - this review barely mentions it in passing. In all fairness, I'm sure it has little to do with the author (apart from that first paragraph) and everthing to do with deadlines and space. Nevertheless, the result is a glib article based on unfinished code that tells me absolutely squat about the gameplay.
I can build the same trust in quality online sites. I haven't bought a gaming mag in two or three years and I don't see that changing.
