LuckyTrouble said:
The fact that you and others seem to assume every reviewer is paid for their time is absolutely hilarious. I'm writing for multiple sites now that get review codes for major games from big publishers and developers, and there is nary a penny to be seen. Getting codes from big publishers and developers doesn't mean your site is big time and is staffed by paid writers. It just means you have a PR person or three that are good at talking with the PR people from various companies and convincing them that x site is big enough to warrant receiving review codes. People seem to think being accepted on Metacritic means the review team is big time too. No, it just means they're turning out a decent number of reviews on relevant games with a consistently appropriate quality, and after contacting Metacritic, they were deemed a good fit to be added to the pool of critics. In fact, fans of any kind are the worst measure for trying to ascertain the true worth of a game because they have no ability to look at the material objectively, primarily because they don't have to. People complain about reviews being biased, and then say "well x people liked it so reviewers must be wrong". wut? Is that person's bias somehow more valid than the reviewer's bias? Or is it just in line with your personal biases so you see it as more valid? Isn't critical thinking fun? Edit: Honestly, the biggest problem here is that people are trying to pick one group to have a definitive opinion. As if enjoyment isn't subjective enough that it's impossible to form an opinion that is accurate for every person. Neither reviewers or fans are right or wrong. Like I said, ultimately, reviews are guidelines, and fan opinions should be treated the same. Neither means x product is definitively good or bad. |
If i listened to critics i wouldnt have enjoyed what has been one of my favorite games this year. Bound by flame. Go see the reviews. See what totalbiscuit said about it. I am not implying they are all paid. I´m implying they look at the games from a different point of view than consumers do. When you play a game, are you constantly looking out for its downsides? Well, these people are. That is not a mindset to enjoy what you are playing.
If you dont allow yourself to play certain games because of the critics, all you are going to play is one type of game, wich is the type of game they like to review. Good grapics, open world. Well, i find that open worlds have been the most boring thing this gen and i wish less games did it. Those sandboxes of repetition and boredom kill the pace of any good game. Bound by flame was a breath of fresh air, in a structure that Bioware used to do in the past but who got changed into the boredom sort of open world of Dragon Age inquisition, where you run around looking for node and portals to close for the Nth time. Game of the year they say. Yet the game of the year bores me to tears.
Are the critics right? No, i dont really think they are, nor could they ever be in the current paradigm. But alas, not everyone is so forthcoming.
The gaming press used to be good back when gaming wasnt mainstream and they were actually trying to enjoy the games they review and tried to tell everyone how fun they were. I miss those times.
