It's also worth positing that the fact this reviewer decided to quit is a review in and of itself. The end, in this reviewer's eyes, could never justify the means. To slog through a game more than 40 hours of boring/dull gameplay and not reach the end? It's understandable to tap out; I would suspect that at least some consumers who blindly buy the game will meet the same end, and that used copies will be plentiful a couple of weeks after release. This title may be "innovative", but the average consumer gets bored pretty quickly if the underlying game doesn't do a hell of a lot.
I couldn't care less if they love it or hate it. Its irrelevant to me.
The point is that a supposedly professional publication should have the resources to fully review one of the most anticipated releases of the year given 3 fucking weeks to do so!
Not having "fun" with the game isn't a good enough reason for dereliction of duty to the medium, their readership, and even out of simple courtesy to the developers of the work. Trying to excuse this lack of respect on a public platform like Twitter is unforgivable in my view.
To your point about consumers having the same reaction, that's a whole other thing because the buyer is responsible only unto themselves. They bought the thing and are entitled to their opinion as to how well-spent that money was.
This on the other hand is a supposed "professional" who was given a copy freely for the purposes of review, and simply couldn't be bothered. Which is atrocious given the prominence of the release, and doubly so given the lack of consensus published opinion marking it out as being particularly worthy of discussion.
Some people found Twin Peaks: The Return to be disappointing, deathly dull, and no fun to watch. But some people loved it, and much like Death Stranding's case you could argue that at least some of that is because of its director's reputation and cultish standing.
Good or bad though, the actuality is that purely by dint of it being an outlier within an otherwise very homogenous and creatively "safe" field, its especially deserving of attention and discussion. Particularly by those with a stated interest in the medium.
Long story short, this debacle just shows EDGE's pretensions to devotion to the "cutting edge of interactive entertainment" to be a sham. How can you claim seriousness and sit on the fence when an opportunity like this comes along?
