senortaco on 11 February 2009
| Non Sequor said: I think this phenomenon is the cause of one of the biggest problems in games journalism today. Reviewers generally don't adequately distinguish between games that are the best thing that's out right now and games that a substantial number of people will come back and play again in 20 years. Any time a reviewer criticizes the latest sacred cow they face an enormous community backlash. The result has been that all of the larger review outlets tend to rate highly hyped games on a scale of 8 to 10. The frothing fanbase of the sacred cow sees the outcome of this and views the reviewers who play ball as being the most trustworthy. Consider the fact that lots of people claim IGN is a highly credible source because it rated their favorite games highly while completely ignoring that it rates a ton of games that are not their favorites just as highly. People are unwilling to listen to people who actually give an honest opinion when there are other people tell them what they want to hear. |
THIS.
It's also I think why I dislike sites like Metacritic & Gamerankings cause sometimes I get the impression that some reviewers are watching what the average is instead of giving their straight up accessment...
sidenote: I LOL'd outloud when Blazinghead use the Sarcasm Shield of Denial...Well played, my friend well played.
The Interweb is about overreaction, this is what makes it great!
...Imagine how boring the interweb would be if everyone thought logically?
