Have you ever noticed that when someone gives a poor review of a game in a magazine, on a web site or even in a forum, they often dismiss it as unfinished or rushed even if they have no basis to make that claim on?

I was wondering what the rest of you think of those type of statements. I bring this up for a few reasons. The way I see it, some programmers or designers are good and some are bad. The same as it is with singers, baseball players or even landscapers. There are people who are at the top of their profession and others who take up space because there is a need or demand for their work, whether it is "good" or not.

It just seems like some people, whether they are informed or not, spend too much time dreaming up theories as to why (Insert Game Title) is a poor game. I understand that there are indeed games which are rushed to the market or released unfinished, but I wouldn't think the number as great as some gamers or reviewers might suggest.

Just because a game is lousy, do you think it is always fair to label it unfinished or rushed, especially if it isn't? I see those two words thrown around far too often. At some point, you'd think reviewers might see some of these "bad" games for what they really are:

Crappy programming, crappy design, crappy company, but not "rushed" or "unfinished." The programmers had a suitable amount of time to work on it and they thought it was complete when it went to release. End of story.

I'm not talking about any game in particular, just putting down some thoughts on a trend I keep noticing in magazines and some message boards (nothing I saw posted here, mind you).

Excuse any spelling or grammar errors. I need to send this and log off. I'll edit any major messes later