How Trustworthy Are Reviews?

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Torillian said:

Avinash_Tyagi said:

madskillz said:

.jayderyu said:
Reviewers get paid by advertisers. Big game companies are advertisers. Reviewers get free gamers from game companies. If advertising game companies don't like the reviews because, they put a strangle hold on the reviewer. I'm sure if you search around enough you can find enough cases of reviews being pulled because the company doesn't like the review.

Reviewers make good reviews by the companies that pay them. This is why some companies don't get as favorable reviews. They don't pay enough or/and the reviewer just doesn't spend as much time. There are of course where games are just bad and theirs little a reviewer can do about it.

Uh, no. I get paid by the Hearst Corporation not an advertiser. Where are you getting your information from? And free games? Not quite. You do realize the game is free, but the labor isn't? And if you can't write worth crap, you can ask all day and they'll never send you a game.

Reviewers have an obligation to report the truth. Sure, some reviewers overlook ethics, but a lot don't and just want to inform readers.

Reviewers make good reviews because they have literary skills. They have a very good command of their language and know how to make a story flow.

  Then explain why reviewers went to an acitivision showing of MW2 to do the review, all expenses paid.

 

Then notice that the user reviews of MW2 are far lower than the critics reviews of the game

The reason for that is simple.  MW2 took away alot of things that PC players love, and therefore they downrated it whereever possible like crazy.  Done and done.

LOL, or maybe its because the game was overhyped and under delivers, the PS3 version has 723 ratings, and the 360 has 1180, its not just people running around downvoting it because they didn't like the PC version.