| FishyJoe said: The problem with the review system is that it caters to a very limited audience. The game magazines are like Fox News, they only publish stories that their audience will agree for the most part irregardless of the views of the general population. |
Coincidentally, IGN is an asset of Fox Interactive Media.
I will never hold any interest in game reviews as long as the reviews lack any intellectual motivation. From what I've seen, game reviews seem to try to fulfill a variety of objectives, few of which I hold even the slightest interest in: summarizing the game (anyone can do that), describing personal opinion and experience on the game (again, this only takes writing skill), or trying to influence sales in some way (many reviews of major games tend to focus more on producing a clear-cut answer as to who should buy the game rather than provide any insight other than the reviewer's opinion). All three seem to mostly require the means and skills to communicate ideas, and nothing more. Many people can do those things. Hell, it happens in this forum all the time. The reviewers, in my eyes, do not have anything that would set them apart from people who I know better and can also communicate their views on a game, other than the fact that maybe they are more used to doing it and I know them less. In other words, I don't see why I should consider their opinion, highly subject to various influences, any better than one from any gamer I am more familiar with.
Once reviewers begin to get their jobs for their ability to offer intellectual insight into a game, I will consider taking note of their reviews. But for now, they hold no more value to me as information conduits than the myriad gamers, each with a unique background and view, who I can easily access through both real life means and the internet.
