Game reviews need to mature more. They are getting less and less relevant.

[The_vagabond7]

OntheEdgeofthemirror said:

The_vagabond7 said:

Regardless of whether or not you like how reviews are done, saying they are less and less relevant is flat out incorrect. Developers have openly said time and time again Metacritic scores are openly discussed as to whether or not a game gets a sequel, is important for future funding for teams or sequels, marketing budgets, ect. Reviews are incredibly relevant as far as publishers go.

 

Furthermore, gamers get the reviewers they deserve. If a game gets a 7.5 instead of an 8 fanboys go completely batshit nuts, ridicule the reviewers personally, critisize their intelligence or integrity, but few complain if a big game gets a 9 or 9.5 because that's what the gaming community expects and wants. Score inflation is a result of fan expectation and reaction. Websites and magazines are a for profit enterprise and need fans in order to function, thus meeting the expectations of gamers is the aim. Gamers complain if scores are too low and question the validity of the website or publication (how many people say "you can't spell ignorant without IGN" whenever their game of choice does not get the expected score even if the game isn't out yet?), but if preconcieved notions are met then review scores are posted everywhere with links to the website or article. So don't blame the reviewing culture, blame the gaming culture that demands they meet their preconcieved notions of how good a game should be.

You obviously haven't read a review from IGN lately, they leave out whole aspects of the game and sometimes don't even get the controls right (the fight for move) and give it a low score because they weren't able to play it, also popular games get about 2 more points then they would if they weren't as hyped just for being hyped, and they ignore flaws in several games that are popular to justify the score, of course metacritic is important to developers thats the publics perception, the thing is that number is based on reviewers that are completely inaccurate and skewed every which way, most of them don't even mention why a game is good or bad, and alot of the reviews often knock a less popular game for one thing then praise a more hyped game for it, so yes reviews need to mature, they suck so much and most people are too stupid to realize it, popular genres get higher scores then less popular ones, even if the less popular one is the better game for the genre, reviews lately are so horrible, take IGN fable review they didn't even mention the combat isn't that a big part of the game? honestly player reviewers are way better then "professional" ones and people need to realize just how bad the reviews their basing their purchase on are 

It's like you didn't read anything I just said, took it as a blanket defense of review sites and publications and then ranted about how bad IGN is. I'm going to go back to talking about economics with Kasz....

But first, Go to gamefaqs and tell me how great player reviews are, and if score inflation (and deflation) exists with player reviews. Don't romantasize something else because you don't like the status quo.