Mummelmann said:
Khuutra: It has been argued since the start of this gen that reviewers who are prone to dislike a genre or franchise should not review them. This argument was usually used to defend Wii games that got low scores that were (in vgchartz users' minds) unfair or too low.
I believe in a blend, there was one site (can't remember which) who set a reviewer to work on a massive blocbuster title that she butchered in the review and a quick glance at her past work showed that she had primarily done things like Monopoly, Viva Pinata, Barbie and other tosh before trying this one. She had little to no insight and verve to review such a title.
Then there are those who are a little too fond of either hype, a platform or a given genre. The tidal wave of perfect scores for GTA IV is a good example of this, reviewers lost their shit and didn't really have much choice if they wanted to keep their readers after all the hype and anticipation. It will be one of those titles one looks back on ten years from now and go; "why the hell did that get a perfect score?!".
I can't say that I object to the score itself (in this case with UC3), but Kantor has arguments that are somewhat valid. In the meantime, I understand where you're coming from as well, having worked briefly as a journalist, I defend the objectivity of the press and the responsibility to report with breadth and honesty regardless.
In many cases ("underscored" Wii games, lower than expected scores for the likes of GT5 and Halo Wars) it comes down to the simple fact that the game(s) simply aren't good enough to warrant higher scores in many people's opinions while in other cases the reviewers are clearly clouded in their judgement either from hype or quite simply economic reasons (ads and the like "bribing" sites) and dish out near ridiculous scores.
This gen as a whole has too many perfect scores or scores that are very close to perfect, in my opinion.
I guess my conclusion is that a reviewer should not be the most avid fan of the console/franchise/whatever nor someone who has openly expressed dissent or nonchalance towards it. These people are hard to come by and that's why we have so many (imo) crap reviews. 
|
What you're describing is abolutely fine, but it need to be said that what you're calling for isn't a qualification for reviewing games, it's just a metric by which one should gauge the tastes of the reviewer.
It's easy to forget thanks to gamerankings and metacritic, but not all reviews mean the same thing and none of them are absolute statements of quality. The Eurogamer review is excellent, both in terms of content and structure, but a lot of people disagree with it. Does this mean the writer has an agenda against Uncharted or Sony? No. That presumption is ludicrous. All it means is that, for someone who doesn't mind the fact that Uncharted is so heavily scripted, this review can be acknowledged as one that doesn't apply to them.
Do I care if the HD elite shit on Wii games? Do I care that Kirby got a 7.5 from IGN? No! Hell no. They care about shit I don't care about. Or God Hand with a 3.5 or whatever they gave it? No! They are not as hardcorez as I am.
The score is meaningless and best ignored, but if it has to be acknowledge then it needs to be with the content of the review in mind, and also whether or not the reviewer games in a way that is anything like you do.
