I know this probably has been discussed thoroughly and with intricate analysis. Sorry for bringing it up again, but I have long forgotten the conclusions and thoughts from others on this, so I wish to make a thread about it.
Anyway, I've taken a break from extensive gaming and more importantly discussing my anticipation of certain games for a while now, and have been starting up again with two big and extensive must have releases for me: Skyrim and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword. So I just watched the video reviews on Skyward Sword from IGN and Gametrailers, and asked myself the questions: "How can two reviews of the same game be so different? Furthermore, how can a review of a game consisting of the negative points, with very little approach toward the positives score so high?" (In the case of the GT review of a 9.1.) For those who are interested, I recommend watching both for an understanding of what I mean.
I can only explain this occurance with the non-existance of standards by which a reviewer follows when writing a review. By this, I mean: should it consist purely of objective facts or should a significant portion of the review be the acummulated subjective opinion or biases of the group? I personally believe it should be the first with a small hint of the latter. Why? So that the review has a purpose for the person reading or watching it. It is a measurement for expectations. When reading a review one most likely seeks the answer to the question of "Should I purchase this game or not?"However, if it is from a series in which one will purchase the game regardless of its value, and they are more interested in the quality of the game in relation to other games of the series; then would it not make more sense for unbiased or stongly objective material? Certainly standards for reviewing any type of media, and even more specific sets for a game moreso should be imposed upon those whom write reviews. It just seems ridiculous to me how I can watch the Gametrailers review of Zelda, get the impression that the series is ageing and there is very little new content, then watch the IGN review and have such an outstanding impression of progression in the series. It just feels like either one or both of the reviewers are being deceptive by presenting their biases rather than the facts, and in effect what the viewer or reader receives is a conscious transfer of subjective, and inherently useless opinions. That in my opinion, is not what a review should be. The subjectivity should be limited to a tone, not extended upon. A review should present me with the facts, while mantaining a limited amount of subjective expression, so that I can form my own impression of the game. With this, I've come to a conclusion that the reviews we have today have no value other than a expression of the writer's thoughts on the content. Anything more than that is an extrapolation for wasteful console wars and comparisons of video games that have very little in common.
So I'm interested: both in responses to my thoughts on what a review should be and what the popular review's true nature reveals to us, as well as a reflection of your own thoughts.
Side-note: I am posting this in the Nintendo Section for two reasons. This thought occured to me after watching reviews of a Nintendo game; and I'm am mostly interested in the opinions of people who own Nintendo consoles, solely because I believe that a negative bias happens more often with Nintendo exclusives than with any other platform. However, I do not hope for the discussion to transition to a "Does the gaming Industry hate Nintendo?" theme.
