aaaand like i said -- trollishly -- in the qt3 thread, they're ignoring the obvious pink elephant in the room: that nobody trusts videogame reviewers, given the gross inconsistency of their standards. oh, maybe we kinda sorta trust the regular byline, but we as readers inevitably turn to suspicions of bias and politics because we can't fathom why else the greater body of writers are so fucking AWFUL at reviewing, well, everything. it's not even about scoring; it's about not being able to articulate WHY they love gta4 despite the glaring flaws, and why they can't meaningfully discuss dynasty warriors despite the game being very mechanically sound to a LOT of gamers. why should i listen to anyone who can't get the basics right?
You're giving way too much credit to the typical, mildly informed gamer. My real-life friends who play games are mostly intelligent, talented people who really do enjoy the hobby, but don't spend nearly as much time reading about them and discussing them as most of us here would. And you know what? They all pretty much only read IGN and trust their reviews. They don't know or care who's writing the reviews. I'm not even sure they read the text. But they sure as hell look at the scores.
The average person doesn't want a detailed, heavily-researched critique that you and I might enjoy (though I doubt it). We're an EXTREMELY small subset of the industry that likely couldn't sustain any publication or website where people actually get paid to do what you want them to do.
that's a fucking good point. But still doesn't excuse some of the awful reviews they've pulled out before. Fight and Heal never forget, and that's just off the top of my head. The problem here is that these game reviewers are having a big symposium about various issues related to the trade, without questioning their own reviews and their own peers. If they want to be taken seriously, I think they should flat out admit first hand that the actual level of critique in the medium is just flat out
bad. I just
want them to bring up the inconsistencies in their reviews; Ultimate Ghouls and Ghosts is slammed for being too hard, Mega Man 9 is seen a ray of sunshine; Lost Odyssey and Mass Effect have really weird technical issues, The Last Remnant is slammed by the press, mostly for the same reasons as Mass Effect and LO, when the gaming community thinks it's pretty good; Blue Dragon is -- from my memory -- treated like a rabid dog ready to kill for being too easy, too kiddy when Poke'mon is one of the best reviewed game series am I correct? Dynasty Warriors are said to be too same-y, too repetitive, too many games ;etc on top of being released annually while the Tom Clancy's, the Call of Duty's, the Madden's get a free pass. There's very little reason for a subset of people to trust these reviewers and they are not doing their jobs. Yes, we are a small subset of people, but readers nonetheless and the writers should cater to all readership, I think.
I admire their willingness to talk these things out and discuss them, but in some areas of the field it seems like they're tip-toeing around one big area that -- and this just me personally -- feel is important in this whole order of business. If they would address the things I described above I say this would be pretty damn interesting and good for the industry and faithful.
That said, I look forward to seeing how this thing grows. Who knows what we'll see regarding the next subject. But in the end, the whole symposium feels pointless, as novel an idea as it seems.
