Ratings/Reviews Significance

[Veknoid_Outcast]

robzo100 said:

Veknoid_Outcast said:

I can share my perspective, which is that of a video game reviewer who also consumes a lot of reviews.

 

I want to be educated.

That means the reviewer tells me about the nuts & bolts of the game: mechanics, modes, scenario, options, etc. It might also include a lesson on video game history or culture.

I want to be entertained.

Whether through clever language, humor, or even sarcasm, I expect a reviewer to use his/her vocabulary and wit to wrap a review in entertaining prose. Anyone can list multiplayer modes and recapitulate a story; a good critic has more tools in his/her tool belt.

I want to be treated with honesty.

Reviewers should be honest with themselves and their audience. They should be consistent in their review criteria and independent of publisher/advertiser interference.

 

This is what I try to achieve in my writing, and what I expect from others.

SInce you are more in the review world than I am how often would you say your last criteria is met? I mean aren't all the companies in bed the bloggers and reviewers these days?

Also, which places do you feel meet your criteria in general?

I won't lie. It's a problem. YouTube, for example, is the wild west. Even with disclosures, it's difficult to tell who's been paid to give a glowing review and who's in it just for free games and swag.

There are also a lot of scandals and/or whisper campaigns surrounding the big names like Polygon, IGN, GameSpot, etc. Unfortunately, the line between editorial and advertising departments at some publications is blurred. It doesn't help that publishers use strong-arm tactics to get positive press, and fans piss and moan whenever a favorite game gets a mediocre score.