A safer review system

And by safer, I mean for both readers and producers of content. There have been complaints by readers regarding the completion of games--they think every reviewed game should be completed. Such a demand is ridiculous and doesn't show much forethought.

What's also causing some head-scratching, a month after GTA IV's release, is that it's not quite the game we thought it was. That's not to say it's bad, or we're upset we got excited for it...it's just that we all wrote about it without getting to understand it as well as we've liked, and now there's a crop of followup-writing that essentially says "Now that it's been out a month and I've played a lot further through it, I have mixed feelings."

So, perhaps "we write what we see" is something that shouldn't only apply to pre-release, but to release and post-release as well. Some games age well, like wine. Others don't, even if they're great for the first two weeks. I did the main story for Mass Effect in 20 hours--after I beat it, I took it in for credit and haven't missed it since. I'm glad I played it; but I don't need more time with it. And it gives me little nostalgia.

Oblivion, on the other hand, was a game I highly regretted selling and had to repurchase. And it holds a larger portion of my memories and heart.

Maybe I'll discuss that more later.