His right. I really like his point about the bromance that's been going on in gaming journalism, one writer never wants to feel left out of the circle and so they all think along the same mindset. That's why we see so many big games receiving the same 15 scores in a row after embargo and then when someone man's up and actually gives their real score, they are picked out, mentioned on podcasts and grumbled about on the Internet.
Reviewers are far to lenient and it annoys me when I listen to them complain about the flaws in a game and then they reward the same game with a 9/10.
I was just listening to the Game Informer podcast last night and they went on for about half an hour talking about how bad parts of Fable 3 was, but then they gave it a 9/10.
Joystiq did the same thing, they talked about all it's flaws and how much inferior the game was compared to Fable 2, but Chris Grant then gave it an 8.
Reviewers should tell us what they think about a game, but when they obviously show their dislike of the game and then rate it highly on the site a few days later, it gets a little disgusting at that point. If they are pushed by similar instances like the 'Hydrophobia' incident or if their sites pulling in heaps of money from publisher ads or gaming journalist are scared of being the outcasts in a very social industry, then something needs to be changed and some writers have got to man up and do their job.
Jim Sterling may be an asshole sometimes, but at least I know that when I read his reviews, I'm getting all the positives and all the negatives and then a true score of how he felt about those experiences.
Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.
