Khuutra said:
Kantor said:
Khuutra said:
Publications exist because it is impossible for single reviewers to review every single major game that comes out. No one man has the time or the energy. You are placing an onus on publications that does not exist.
There is no wrong perspective from which to approach a game, just perspectives which some readers are free to ignore.
His review is perfectly in keeping with his value set. It's not his job to say "I didn't like this, but maybe you would", it's his job to say "I had a problem with this". That is Eurogamer's modus operandi.
These requirements you place on reviewers don't really exist.
|
The requirements exist in my mind and really ought to exist in everyone else's. If they don't, I can see why so much negativity is directed towards reviewers.
Why on earth would you pay somebody and send them free games to do what anybody could do? Granted, some non-reviewers are capable of being reviewers, but not all of them, because something is required beyond an ability to say that you like or dislike a game.
The reviewers you describe don't need to exist.
|
The utility of reviews comes solely in what people get out of them. Reviewers exist so readers can read different opinions about a game. If all reviewers operate off of the basis that you describe, then there is no need for there to be more than one reviewer or publication.
And why? Because you think they'll like it. It's the reality of reviews.
The world of reviews you describe is helplessly boring.
|
Of course opinion is involved; it's just not the only thing present.
(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective 
