As of this writing, Halo 2 has 45 reviews on Amazon.com -- almost all of them glowing. The only problem? Halo 2 is scheduled to ship in April 2004. None of the 45 reviewers could have actually played the game.
Of course, I think the game is going to be great, too. I've seen the trailers for it, and I can't wait for it to come out. The original Halo was amazing, and this looks even better.
But still -- I wouldn't write a review of it. I haven't played it, I haven't seen it. I _think_ it will be good, but how could I know for sure?
But the entire video game industry works like this. "Star Wars Galaxies" was the runner-up for Best of Show at E3 -- in 2001. It was just released a couple of months ago. "Doom 3" won Best of Show, Best PC Game, and Best Action Game last year, and it still isn't released. I can understand wanting to give some nod to previews of upcoming titles that are particularly impressive, but it really seems like I should be able to buy the "Best of Show" winner.
It's a wacky world...
I think that the e3 awards are for games that look really good. they don't have to be out in public to win awards. it's kinda like if a forign film you buy on dvd say "Winner of Golden Trout award". you might have never seen the film before, but it has been shown privatley.
Posted by: Ian on September 21, 2004 11:12 PM