Kotaku published a full review of a game they couldn't finish. Literally.
The Original Review
“An incredibly creative and often funny FPS held back by wonky combat and glitches.”
Let me get this straight. Zack Zwiezen published a full review of High on Life 2 without finishing the game because he got stuck in an infinite death loop during the final boss. He then told readers to 'wait for patches.' This is like a restaurant critic reviewing a meal they didn't finish because they choked on the main course, and then recommending the restaurant anyway once they fix the Heimlich situation.
The review praises the game's 'creativity' and 'humor' while simultaneously documenting that the combat is broken, the game is buggy, and the performance is bad. In journalism we call this 'burying the lede.' In retail we call this 'selling someone a car with three wheels and complimenting the paint job.'
Follow the timeline: review copy received before launch. Embargo date set by publisher. Review published on schedule despite being incomplete. The machine doesn't stop for quality — it stops for deadlines. Zack didn't review a game. He reviewed a press build with a deadline stapled to it. The fact that Kotaku published an unfinished review of an unfinished game has a poetic symmetry that I'm sure was entirely unintentional.
Sponsored by accountability. Or it would be, if anyone had any.
