I think this is difficult territory we are walking on here. Being a journalist first and foremost is not about knowing what you're writing about - it's about knowing how to write. It's about the proper use of language, grammar and spelling, following some basic rules and knowing how to convey information. There are a few things one can learn about journalism, but being a good journalist is not something anyone can do. I'll go as far as saying that being able to write is some form of talent.

The next step is knowing what you're talking about. Now the question is, where do you draw the line? Does a person who reviews games have to have played everything that happened since Pong? Or is it sufficient that he or she knows what was there, which games were the milestones, which ones brought their genre forward? If someone writes a review about a specific game, I expect them to have played it, preferrably to the end, but at least far enough to have a good impression of what the game is about. I expect them to have some knowledge about the genre, similar titles, and possibly even a liking or preference for that type of game. I however don't expect them to have played every predecessor or title of the same genre since the dawn of time. Now while it could be interesting to read game coverage by the likes of Fatal1ty, it could just as well be a total waste of time - depending on his writing skills.

This was one of the most awesome game I have ever played. Keeping it interesting and non-repetitive over more than 50 hours of gameplay was an exceptional achievement. The story was gripping and non-stereotypical, and the variations and choices made for good replay value. I bought both the original CE and the new Enhanced Edition.

I would like to say thank you for putting in the effort to make the setting and environment of the game so authentic. This is turning the game into a big success here in South Africa. Very well done!