I'm confused. Why would they review an incomplete game? Who would want to read anything but a brief preview of something that's not even remotely finished?

"Yeah mang, this is our world exclusive in-depth review of Duke Nukem Forever............."

"Gameplay is near non-existant. All you get is brief glimpses of what could and should have been, and it all (quickly) ends with a cheesy and cliche oneliner. We expected more from such a legendary series..............."

Or has Spore actually been finished without me noticing? I haven't followed its development.

I don't think Kotaku is shit per se, but a lot of their "informed" blurbs are embarrassingly opinionated. I'm all for blog/journal like quips in news stories, but some of this stuff is just really pathetic potshots at figures who don't deserve the backhand.

I get my gaming news from

Next Generation - Interactive Entertainment Today, Video Game and Industry News - Home of Edge Online
and
Gamasutra - The Art & Business of Making Games

Although I do visit Kotaku on occasion, its not someplace i'd go to for reliable news.

As far as the blogs go, people post ANYTHING they hear. "Did you hear that its possible that maybe in the future Nintendo will want to make a Star Fox game?" Okay. Thanks for wasting 10 seconds of my time with that "article."

The "impressions" article that I'm referring to is in regards to the guy saying "Spore kinda sucks" while clearly ignoring the game for what it is and whining because its not "The Sims: Eye-pooper edition"

There is absolutely nothing wrong with vociferously pointing out that shitty things are shit

Have you browsed GFF before

Have you played Spore yet? Maybe they're right in that the expectations were not met. I enjoy Will Wright's games and dislike Kotaku, but I don't see what the problem is. The game was marketed with this epic feel to it where your creature takes a huge journey from a cellular level to a galactic one and if that only takes 5 hours, then that is a bit disappointing.

I think you fail to see the idiocy in putting out a final review of a game months before the game is released, much less anyone taking the review seriously. For god's sake, Yahtzee from Zero fucking Punctuation could review Spore 6 months ago and I'd be laughing at him.

Also, "Have you played Spore yet?" is like asking "Have you played Duke Nukem Forever yet?" You sound like just as much of a jackass as you think we do when you sit here and defend badly-thought-out points on a game that isn't finished yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBC News Spore, the long awaited creation of gaming legend Will Wright, is going on sale on 7 September in the US.

The BBC seem to think it's not quite ready yet...

edit: I guess nesting urls and quotes doesn't work then. :(

BBC NEWS | Technology | Spore to go on sale in September

ALERT THE INTERNET!

Seriously though, Kotaku's reviewing a high profile game eons before anyone else and giving it a bad review. Even if what they're playing is anything close to the final product, they aren't the only voice in the online shouting match of game reviews. So far we've got one "Bad" and one million "Not sure, I haven't played it yet", and this is just the beta. Give the game time and we'll see how more people react to it before we dismiss it entirely.