New editorial about the review system and people who complain about it

[Kantor]

Rainbird said:

Kantor said:

rocketpig said:

Kantor said:

rocketpig said:

Meh. People may complain about movie reviews but I'd rather see a critic have the balls to say "I didn't like Apocalypse Now and this is why" instead of blindly awarding the movie with a 9 or better because everyone else thinks it's great.

That would require the existence of a critic who didn't like Apocalypse Now. A reviewer isn't going to pretend to hate the game and list all sorts of potential problems when he actually loves it, just for the sake of standing out. That's known as hit-whoring.

EXACTLY.

There were "critics" who hated Pulp Fiction. There were "critics" who hated Blade Runner. There were "critics" who hated Love Story. There were critics who hate everything about different forms of media.

At least they gave their opinions.

So the only way to succeed as a critic is to have a controversial opinion?

No, if you want to be a good critic, you should give your real opinion, and not be afraid of what people might think about it. I'm not a fan of Pulp Fiction, and no amount of praise, fanboy threats and whatnot will ever tell me that I'm wrong, just like no critic should be affected by it. Not for movies and not for games.

So then, shouldn't it work the other way around? For example, I loved the Pink Panther movie. Other people hated it. I don't care. I loved Big Momma's House 2. I loved Yu-Gi-Oh: Duelists of the Roses and Lego: Rock Raiders.

A critic's job is to give an objective description of the game, along with their own opinion on why things work or don't work. When people complain about a great game getting a low score, 9/10 times it's because the review is shit, full of fanboyism, and completely ignoring huge parts of the game.