I know this probably has been discussed thoroughly and with intricate analysis. Sorry for bringing it up again, but I have long forgotten the conclusions and thoughts from others on this, so I wish to make a thread about it. 

Anyway, I've taken a break from extensive gaming and more importantly discussing my anticipation of certain games for a while now, and have been starting up again with two big and extensive must have releases for me: Skyrim and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword. So I just watched the video reviews on Skyward Sword from IGN and Gametrailers, and asked myself the questions: "How can two reviews of the same game be so different? Furthermore, how can a review of a game consisting of the negative points, with very little approach toward the positives score so high?" (In the case of the GT review of a 9.1.) For those who are interested, I recommend watching both for an understanding of what I mean.

I can only explain this occurance with the non-existance of standards by which a reviewer follows when writing a review. By this, I mean: should it consist purely of objective facts or should a significant portion of the review be the acummulated subjective opinion or biases of the group? I personally believe it should be the first with a small hint of the latter. Why? So that the review has a purpose for the person reading or watching it. It is a measurement for expectations. When reading a review one most likely seeks the answer to the question of "Should I purchase this game or not?"However, if it is from a series  in which one will purchase the game regardless of its value, and they are more interested in the quality of the game in relation to other games of the series; then would it not make more sense for unbiased  or stongly objective material? Certainly standards for reviewing any type of media, and even more specific sets for a game moreso should be imposed upon those whom write reviews. It just seems ridiculous to me how I can watch the Gametrailers review of Zelda, get the impression that the series is ageing and there is very little new content, then watch the IGN review and have such an outstanding impression of progression in the series. It just feels like either one or both of the reviewers are being deceptive by presenting their biases rather than the facts, and in effect what the viewer or reader receives is a conscious transfer of subjective, and inherently useless opinions. That in my opinion, is not what a review should be. The subjectivity should be limited to a tone, not extended upon. A review should present me with the facts, while mantaining a limited amount of subjective expression, so that I can form my own impression of the game. With this, I've come to a conclusion that the reviews we have today have no value other than a expression of the writer's thoughts on the content. Anything more than that is an extrapolation for wasteful console wars and comparisons of video games that have very little in common.

So I'm interested: both in responses to my thoughts on what a review should be and what the popular review's true nature reveals to us, as well as a reflection of your own thoughts. 

Side-note: I am posting this in the Nintendo Section for two reasons. This thought occured to me after watching reviews of a Nintendo game; and I'm am mostly interested in the opinions of people who own Nintendo consoles, solely because I believe that a negative bias happens more often with Nintendo exclusives than with any other platform. However, I do not hope for the discussion to transition to a "Does the gaming Industry hate Nintendo?" theme.

i agree the score number should reflect what has been said in the review. i can't sit here and talk about how bad a game is and then give it a 9/10 :P

Different reviewers, publications and even each review can have a different purpose and/or methodology. There will never be one correct way of reviewing or scoring a game. In the end a review is just the writers opinion on the game, so naturally every one will be different as each reviewer will have different styles and have different likes and dislikes when it comes to games so there is no real reason for compairing scores of one game let alone 2 different ones other than d!ck mesuring.

Video reviews are short. They are often abbreviated versions of full length written reviews. The GT review of Skyward sword tells you mostly negatives because those are more important than the good things. BTW, I watched the review and didn't think it was negative. I was actually expected a score closer to 10 by the time the review was over so I was a little surprised GT gave it a 9.1. If you read the full written review on IGN you will see everything that got left out of their video review.

It's like a movie based on a book. An 800 page epic gets reduced down to a 90 minute blockbuster. The important stuff might still be there, but most of the detail is missing.

My suggestions, stick to text if it matters to you and watch video reviews when it's less important to you.

Everything's relative. I remember back in the day when Gameboy games would sometimes get 9/10 or something. How could this be? The Gameboy only had 4 colors (green, blue, dark green, and yellow-green), tinny music, and simple gameplay.

Well, for a Gameboy game, the standards were different. It was hard to justify giving the best Gameboy game possible a lower score because it did the best it could with the hardware available. If the same game were released for the Nes/Snes, it would have been dinged for its shortcomings.

Same goes for today. If a game was released for the HD Twins with Wii graphics, it's going to get docked a few points. If a game that was barely acceptable on the DS got released for the 3DS, it's gonna get docked, too. It's just a matter of what people expect and what is delivered.

Everyone's expectations are different, though. Reviewer 1 may expect great graphics and gameplay from Super Puffball Adventures 7. Reviewer 2 may expect great storytelling and new game physics. Those two are looking for two totally different things and based on SPB7's strengths, it may be two different things to two different people.

Great post

Quite frankly, most of the so called game journalism is little better than articulated fanboys. Whatever is the score given, the discussion preceding it should justify it. The IGN's review raises a lot of high points of the game, justifying the perfect score whereas the GT's review fails to justify how the game was so good as the narrator basically tell us about the perceived flaws.

Obviously, any journalist have his own bias and the same is true to any publication. I was curious about GT's review and thus I listened to their Invisible Walls video cast. It seems that the editor in chief is not liking Skyward Sword much, despite the fact he hasn't finished it yet. Most of the complains of the game review are exactly his objections. As the narration doesn't follow the score, it raises the suspicion that they were written by different people or, at least, the editor asked to highlight his problems with the games. In any way, the final result is bad due to this inconsistence.

Also, in bias, I think there is a bias against motion controls. I don't think they give enough consideration about it and actually disliked it. If this Zelda works as IGN says, I'll love it, as I fully embrace the physicality of motion controlled sword fight. However, GT's editor in chief really hated it as he discovered he have to seat properly to play it, instead of lying casually as he -- I guess -- often play games. It seems that motion controls got the hate from a lot of couch potatoes among game journalism.