| MontanaHatchet said: Was your first sentence a joke? It kind of discredits your point completely. Just look at some of the user reviews on any site, and you'll find that many of them just aren't good. You obviously have no idea why pro reviewers have their jobs. They wouldn't make a living reviewing games if they were non-gamers, and they often times sign up to take certain games. It's not like they're constantly forced to review games against their will. And the temptation of giving high budget games big scores is still a far lesser evil than the bias of an anonymous person on the internet. I distinctly remember a review for Final Fantasy 12 on Gamefaqs which gave the a 3/10, and was taken down later when it was revealed that there was something false in the review, and the reviewer in question hadn't actually played the game. |
Yes it was a joke. I don't believe that description fits the average GameFAQs reviewer, but you obviously do. I think the average GameFAQs reviewer is an informed hardcore gamer that understands and respect the genre in question, and wants to provide others with an honest opinion. I think the trolls and idiots are a minority. Trolls usually don't care enough to write long detailed reviews. If you compare GameFAQs average scores with Metacritic scores, then you'll notice an interesting pattern: Games surrounded by a lot of hype consistently get higher scores on Metacritic. Games with little to no hype get higher scores on GameFAQs. I personally find that I agree far more often with GameFAQs than Metacritic.
Anyway this debate isn't going anywhere. You're saying that pro reviewers represent some kind of objective way of measuring game quality. I say that's BS, and I'd rather take may chances with GameFAQ's. I don't think we'll agree.
