Keep it pessimistic, or in reality honest, because I can find glowing reviews for mediocre content with ease. <br><br>It baffles me how some people can shower a game with compliments and declare it a 5/5 after playing it for an hour, and in the same breath claim that you can’t determine a game is bad in that same amount of time.,(reply>), @Marco Polo you should be pesimistic...,(reply>), He basically said they just showed real game footage 1 hour long, tens of months before release instead of promising you its gonna be the best game ever. You know, the real shit. It wont be perfect. Witcher wasnt. It was just a really good game with memorable situations. I hope its gonna be again! 9/10 game and hopefully some other games gonna win goty award so we can have a good year in gaming. Tell me true tho, what are the chances you gonna have such a nice game with coming aaa titles? Maybe newest ES gonna be that. For now, its a hype but in a good way.,(reply>), I agree. You have got to get over the initial honeymoon phase of a game to know if it has any actual staying power. At first, many games are good, but a week later or so depending is when all the chips are finally on the table and you can make the best review if you will of a game.  Is it still fun or does in have high replayability or do you have that whole "I cant wait to get home" feel of it still.,(reply>), Because being neutral is impossible. Everyone has an opinion. <br><br>“Keep it Pessimistic” was in reply to him saying every time he points out a games glaring issues, he is labeled a pessimist. <br><br>How many game reviews glaze over glaring issues, fail to mention the plethora of bugs that will ruin a play session, or just dismiss bad mechanics as a minuscule issue? A lot. <br><br>So when it is impossible to be neutral, either because of a desire for personal gain or fear of a loss of access, it’s good to have a reviewer that leans towards telling the people what the problems with a game are.,(reply>), How about just being neutral?