Quite frankly, most of the so called game journalism is little better than articulated fanboys. Whatever is the score given, the discussion preceding it should justify it. The IGN's review raises a lot of high points of the game, justifying the perfect score whereas the GT's review fails to justify how the game was so good as the narrator basically tell us about the perceived flaws.
Obviously, any journalist have his own bias and the same is true to any publication. I was curious about GT's review and thus I listened to their Invisible Walls video cast. It seems that the editor in chief is not liking Skyward Sword much, despite the fact he hasn't finished it yet. Most of the complains of the game review are exactly his objections. As the narration doesn't follow the score, it raises the suspicion that they were written by different people or, at least, the editor asked to highlight his problems with the games. In any way, the final result is bad due to this inconsistence.
Also, in bias, I think there is a bias against motion controls. I don't think they give enough consideration about it and actually disliked it. If this Zelda works as IGN says, I'll love it, as I fully embrace the physicality of motion controlled sword fight. However, GT's editor in chief really hated it as he discovered he have to seat properly to play it, instead of lying casually as he -- I guess -- often play games. It seems that motion controls got the hate from a lot of couch potatoes among game journalism.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
