Why can't gamers diferentiate between their personal taste and quality.

[Veknoid_Outcast]

stlwtng4Dmdrxip said:

Veknoid_Outcast said:
I would argue the exact opposite, that a game is good precisely because one likes it, and is bad because one doesn't like it. What I don't understand is when someone says "it's a bad game, but I like it," or, conversely, "it's a great game but I don't like it." If you like it, it's good, at least to you. But you can't speak for anyone else anyway, so YOU are all that matters.

That's a very simplistic way of seeing things isn't it? Reality exists in spite of our opinions, and shoudn't payed reviewers be put on a higher standard than just some random guy on a gaming website?

Oops, didn't see this reply until just now.

What higher standard should game critics aspire to? Yes, they should have journalistic integrity, they should demonstrate consistency, and they should be well-informed and articulate. But beyond that, what can they do? Their ratings and reviews will always, always be tied to their own subjective opinion of what defines greatness. In that respect they are no different from the random guys on gaming websites. What makes them special is their proximity to the industry, their deep knowledge of video games, and their writing style -- at least in theory.

Apart from giving us the release date, the genre, and the specifics of each game, they are not responsible for reflecting reality. They're responsible for reflecting their own values and priorities in an artful, entertaining way.