That "update" doesn't change the multiple paragraphs of text above it about how greedy pay-to-win ruins the game. It deliberately gives the impression that this

That "update" doesn't change the multiple paragraphs of text above it about how greedy pay-to-win ruins the game. It deliberately gives the impression that this is a temporary thing, which it wasn't. It's tacked on at the end even though this is a major change to the balance of the game. The most downvoted comment in the history of Reddit, referenced repeatedly by Kotaku not just in that review but in others, is about the pay-to-win mechanic they based their original review around. They have since lifted tons of comments from that thread (although at least in that instance they gave credit?) as Reddit-service in their other writings. All video game reviews are opinionated, that's kinda the point, but it's possible to make a useful opinionated review. Theirs are not. As an example of what I'm talking about, read the section in the BF II review where the author talks about time-to-kill in multiplayer. Realize how useless it is because of the lack of references to other similar games; is the weapon strength closer to Halo, or CoD4 hardcore mode? "Weak" and "unexpected" are totally useless without some frame of reference, which the author could give (just like many other reviews do) but doesn't. As an aside, theirs is definitely a minority opinion if you read other reviews or watch twitch streams.