I liked the Mako, and I hold that there was very little wrong with it. There was an awful lot wrong with the apparently-procedural generation of a lot of the planets, though. I’m like, 94% certain that the Mako’s ridiculous wall-climbing abilities and so on are the result of someone at Bioware going “Okay, either we can spend weeks tweaking these planets so that there are sane ways to traverse them, or we can modify the Mako’s physics, which will take like ten minutes…”.
The planet scanner, however, I maintain was NOT A MINIGAME, it was a procedure, and a particularly tedious one, because aside from the times you were locating a mission (which were fine, but rare), it was merely a tedious procedure you had to undergo until you had X amount of Y resource. I remember I used to know the exact figures you needed to upgrade everything in the game. My second and third run-throughs of ME2, I stopped planet scanning at precisely the right amounts (or slightly over). Later ones? I fucking cheated. I just hacked in the exact right amount so I didn’t have to fuck that tedious procedure.
Are you talking about the RPS MH review? Because if so that’s a pretty extreme attitude, and you’re using literally as “metaphorically”, which is the worst, if sadly common these days.
This is the problem you have here. You expect the review to be written for someone who is already an expert on the game, already knows exactly what MH is, and how it works, and so on, and so just wants the technical nitty-gritty and close analysis of the gameplay and very little else. But that’s not what most people would expect from a review, including most PC gamers. I have friends who buy a lot of PC games, over a year, often full-price AAAs like this, and most of them have vaguely heard of MH but know nothing about it. To them, the RPS MH review would be pretty informative, and exciting. Because droning on about invulnerability frames and glitches and so on isn’t going to mean shit to them.
I mean really what this points to is that maybe we need a sort of separation between types of reviews - there should perhaps be:
A) Reviews for general gamers, who are not huge enthusiasts/experts in a specific game or genre, but want to know about in broad terms, what’s exciting about it, why would they play it. RPS is good for that kind of thing, generally.
B) Reviews for “enthusiasts”, who are experts on games, and who want that deep technical analysis, whether it is of gameplay, or performance, or both.
I’m not blaming you for this. Reviews have always been a messy mix.
I mean, for example, Halo 3, when it came out, got virtually “enthusiast” reviews. Huge Halo fans practically masturbating over how fantastically Halo Halo 3 was, and going on and on about Halo-specific-stuff that only made much sense to huge Halo fans. And the reason was that all the reviewers were of a very Halo generation, it was their game, so they gave these very deeply enthusiast/expert-oriented reviews.
To me, as a very casual Halo fan, it was really off-putting.
But around the same time, you saw the inverse, too. Diablo 2 being a good example. The vast majority of reviews of it were clearly by people who were not particularly keen on ARPGs, and perhaps not on RPGs at all, and they tended to be very vague and high-level, sort of “I played through this once on one character” (and maybe didn’t finish it) and this is whole I feel. Things had improved a bit by the time LoD, the expansion came out, but most reviews were still that way - written by people who weren’t enthusiasts, didn’t get what drew people to it (often offering fatuous theories), and from a very “I played through this once…” sort of perspective.
As someone who was an enthusiast about D2, I found this equally off-putting, because I wanted reviews from people who knew what was going on, who could make in-depth commentary about the new classes, the new act and so on, not vague waffle.
So I can see it both ways, and I think both kind of review have value, but to different people.