Oooo, some vs. most, you got me! I'm in trouble now! lol.
I'd actually stick with most. I think it's truism, actually -- most people do make superficial assessments of games. You only dig deeper with the ones you're interested in. I make superficial assessments/judgments of games all the time -- "eh, another racing game," "eh, another military shooter," "eh, another Dark Souls-ish game," "eh, another hero shooter," etc. I could give lots of examples. I think it's just human nature to make superficial assessments/judgments. If you're honest with yourself, you'll see that you do it all the time. I think most people do that with a lot of things. So yeah, "most" is more accurate.
First of all, words matter, and yes, in this context changing your stance from "most" to "some" matters a lot and points to a shifting stance on your end.
Second of all, you're way better than this. The definition of superficial that I suspect we're both using is..."appearing to be true or real only until examined more closely." Are you saying that those who have negative impressions of the game are going to change their tune once they get more hands on time with it? If history is any indication, this probably won't happen. Gerstman probably won't like it. Klepeck probably won't like it. I probably won't like it. I'd love to be proven wrong but the odds are fairly well established at this point.
All in all, I'm not sure if we should be classifying negative previews as "superficial" when they've basically become the canary in the coal mine for upcoming games.
Why not compare me to Harvey Weinstein or Kim Jong Un while you're at it?
I used creative license on a game message board. My lawyers are readying their defense for the inevitable suit headed my way. Regardless, you attempted to discredit people who had a different opinion than you. Our Commander in Chief has done that once or twice, I think.
I don't mean that exploring further is going to necessarily impress people. Maybe after learning more, people still think it is bland and boring. That's fine. What I am trying to say is that if you explore further, you learn (or at least I learn) that it's not "just another zombie game." There are things that distinguish it from your normal "blow-the-heads-off-zombies" shooter (e.g., narrative, motorcycle, open world, some of the game mechanics, etc.).
I think you underestimate your fellow industry fans here. I can't speak for all, but I suspect most knew this was going to be a Last of Us (zombies, story heavy, tone) crossed with Horizon (open world, light stealth) mash up. I don't think "digging deeper" is going to yield anything meaningful for most of us critics at this point.
If I'm batting 90%, I'm doing a hell of a lot better than you, my friend. Why don't you focus some of that critical scrutiny on your own statements, instead of putting mine under the microscope? You know -- get your own sh*t in order first, before you come after me? But I guess there's "no fun in that," is there?
Isn't that like telling a coarse block of wood to smooth it's edges down before interacting with sandpaper? I'm not sure how effective that's going to be.
I interact with you in large part, to get a better understanding of my own thoughts.
Andy, you are phenomenal member here. By my account, 2018 will be your 4th consecutive UnionVGF member of the year honor. (Valliance beat everyone by a landslide in 2014) However, this, to me, does not appear to be your finest outing.
I will say this, and not enough is made about this regarding Sony, but it sounds like Sony Bend isn't even committing to first half 2019 anymore. If this turns into a Q3 or Q4 2019 game then this conversation is even less relevant than it already is. Sony has supported it's game makers better than I've ever seen them, which bodes well for Days Gone.