There’s no exact point in time at which “the aggregated reviews” are one finished article of news. One bootlicking review site will have its review of a game out in the first 3 hours to be the first place people read. Then, another detailed reviewer will spend a week investigating the game’s systems before providing a more nuanced review.
Comment on OpenCritic now has user-reviews including pros&cons and shows user score
helenslunch@feddit.nl 2 months agoOf course it does? I want to see reviews for new games…
Katana314@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Carighan@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Hrm, I’ll be honest then, you’re the very very first time I hear someone wanting to consume game reviews meta aggregation in a chronological way (instead of by-game). Not once seen this sentiment before.
I dunno, it’s just not how people use these pages I would assume. You create search shortcuts for them, not RSS feeds. You want to look up what various reviewers at large say about a specific game, more so because this changes over time (so would a feed udoate each time the score changes? Only once on the very first review? Only once it stops updating for X time? What if that takes months?). It’s the polar opposite of once you have 2-3 reviewers who mirror your personal take well where you might want to know each time these people post a new review.
Ashtear@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Here’s a second person, then. It shouldn’t be too surprising; anyone that works in games media will tell you that new releases are what drive peak engagement.
RSS can be similar to their Twitter feed, with a curated set of highlighted games once a certain amount of reviews are in. I already get a dozen feeds that have reviews in them anyway, and I often read them even if I’m not already interested in the game. Why not an aggregate? I’d subscribe in a heartbeat.