The "reviews don't matter" argument, as presented by Zenfoldor

[ZenfoldorVGI]

Million said:
I agree with this but the current review system is probably the best method we have of rating the quality of games despite it's obvious drawbacks , i wouldn't go as far as saying they don't matter but they definetley aren't very credible.

A. Standards change, so games rated now, who get low scores, are actually better than games from 10 or even 2 years ago.

>>>I don't think it would be possible to quanitfy a games quality in relation to games made X years ago and even if it was possible would the average user be able to understand them ?

B. Reviews aren't based off the quality of the game, but the hype surrounding it.

>>> True but at the same time the entertainment derived from the game could be largley due to the hype , I think the most important aspect of a game is it's entertainment value and if a reviewer feels entertained by a game partly because all his friends said the game was excellent then hasn't the end the developer intended been achieved ?

C. Standards differ between platforms.

>>> True but no one seems to care about this , it's our nature to compare even when comparison isn't fair . If some one goes to the shop to buy a game they'll have to choose between different genres wether they choose to or not . Comparison across genres is troublesome but also neccasery.

D. Reviewers are corrupt.

>>> Amen , let's hunt em all down.

I've said this a few times, but those aren't my arguments, they are simply common arguments. My arguments are in the text. Those arguments are all debatable, and opinion. That was my intent when listing them.