I am not even talking about there Anti-Nintendo bias, I don't read either one because it is filled (mostly) with old news and incredibly irrelavant chatter.
One example: Give Boogie a bad review, fine. The justification however, basically said: Writing reviews is hard and that's my opinion. Well justify your opinion, if you are going to continue the arguement. Explain it to me. If they are going to review ANY game below 5, I want details. Same if they review anything over 7.7. Below five (below average) to me says: Do not buy, no matter what. That is a D or an F, and isn't worth looking at.... well tell me why you think that, in detail. 7.7 or great is B or A work, and I take that as a recommendation to buy. Again, why?
It is unfair to developers, publisher and consumers to rate any game outside of average with out going into detail. How are the developers going to make it better with out well expressed input, or how can consumers make well informed buying decisions?
1up reviews are good length but lack depth. EGM reviews are too short, 3 reviewers writing a couple paragraghs each, usually.
There is too much focus on what is coming, not enough on what is here, now. (true of most game sites and mags though). I know that the most vocal hardcore gamers crave this stuff, but the more casual gamers who constitute the bulk of the market, I believe, shy away from anticipation on most titles. (I mean Madden/Halo/GTA casual, not Brain Age casual)
Too many games are hyped like the next big thing, then it comes get a moderate review and never gets talked about again. It's an insane way to run a publication. I know they are almost all run like that, but 1up (to me, IMO) is one of the worst.
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.
