Are game journalist really that more competent than forum posters?

[Torillian]

dunno001 said:

Kantor said:
I can only really speak for reviewers here, but the difference on this site between a reviewer and a forum poster who can review well is that the forum poster hasn't applied to be a reviewer :/

And if you ever think a review that we or any other site has written is childish or poorly written, go read some user reviews and try to say that they're any better.

Out of fairness, though, you guys do have a vetting process. That's what stops pretty much all of the bad user reviews from being reviewers. I'd guess that as an overall trend through the gaming industry, as an average, a "pro" review is better than a poster review, but some of the best poster reviews are better than most pro reviewers.

I would agree with that last bit, but that's because those amazingly good poster reviews are from someone who played the game to 100% completion and have the time to dedicate to that one title and eek out every bit of info they can.  If you review for a site and not just for your own enjoyment you obviously don't have that kind of time.  I can't ask that my reviewers actually 100% every game they get, best I can do is require that they beat the main game's campaign and atleast try all the side stuff, I think that's a happy medium between getting the review out quickly and making sure it's accurate for as much of the game as possible.