This is what happens when your company's console has no third party support- and an attitude that says they could care less anyway.
Even worse, when the die-hard fans have that attitude and help create the illusion that your console will be fine if you just keep pumping in Zelda and Mario games.
Combos, doubles, linkers, enders, breakers, and ultras.
New editions are counter-breakers and a more flexible breakers system overall, as well as Instinct mode and a meter. I fail to see how the addition of these things broke the formula.
They had to rush to get this out at launch. It's always super-important every console has at least 1 fighting game at launch, or else there's a huge segment of people who won't bother with the console.
The good thing is they were aware of the timetable, and they focused on making the engine and everything 100% complete, and decided to focus on characters after. It's an incredibly solid fighting game in it's current state.
There's no complication really. Pay 20 bucks, get 6 fighters now and the other 2 when they are finished. Or, pay nothing and just try the game out.
I've been played the original KI, and I just had the pleasure of playing this.
Trust me, it's KI.
And as someone who plays competitive fighting games, having 6 characters hardly makes a difference.
Go online in Street Fighter IV or Injustice, and you'll find 90 percent of your fights are just against a handful of the most overpowered characters. If they only have 6 fighters, it doesn't matter if it is well-balanced, because you'll see all those fighters online. I litterally just had an Injustice session and played 5 random Batmans IN A ROW.
If the reviewer doesn't think these things are of note, they probably shouldn't be reviewers at all.
It's one thing to write FROM your own perspective, its a whole other to write TO your perspective. It's basically like talking to yourself or writing in a diary.
Reviews aren't written for the reviewer, they're for the reader. And they need to be aware that the reader who disagrees can't just be left out in the cold and get no information about the game.
There's literally an ENTIRE website dedicated to this, because so many reviewers forget to include this simple information.
Certain information is not what a reviewer THINKS about the game, it's actually what the game IS and that actually leads to decisions on whether or not to buy the game.
For example, if a game includes split-screen, the reviewer can't THINK otherwise. A reviewer can't say "In my opinion, this game does not support split-screen" and get away with it by saying "its just my opinion". They're speaking on an unalterable fact.
And given that games such as Borderlands having split-screen sell games based on that being included. That's important
Edit* And it takes ONE line to say "yeah, I beat this in around 15 hours". There's no excuse to not mention it because it's unremarkable- given a specific case. It's a short fact that is useful to many people. Just include it.
It's not personal preference, it's fact. If you say the game is an "Action adventure game", that's a fact, not an opinion, and it's a fact that makes the buyer more informed.
If you say a game has split-screen, or online mulitplayer, that's not opinion, that's a fact that describes actual content of the game.
Game length is one of those. You can say a game is short, or long, and that doesn't change much based on opinion.
People buy the games based on these, and so its important whether the reviewer acknowledges that or not.
Even if the game being long doesn't help it- it's still raw information that might be useful to someone who disagrees on the merits of the gameplay analysis.
Saying the game is 20 hours isn't saying its better- its just saying to someone who read the review and found the game appealing how much of that content they will get.
Reviews shouldn't only describe HOW the game is, it should also describe WHAT the game is- so people who have different opinions still get some use out of it.
LtReviews' comments