windbane said:
Most places have a policy to let people review games they are inclined to enjoy. That policy at least applies to genres and often to certain game series. A fan of the series can tell if there is a drop in quality from the previous games. There is no "objective" view of a videogame, anyway. But I don't really care what the reviews are, except I want a lot of people to play the game. I'd buy Metal Gear Solid games no matter what the review scores were, unless perhaps Kojima had nothing to do with it. |
Why can't anyone view a video game objectively, based on its own merits and without a preconceived notion of what the game "could be" versus what it really is?
A game reviewer should be able to pick up any game and review it. Part of reviewing is putting your own personal bias to the side for a moment (as best one can, anyway) and viewing the title on its own merits. Putting a fan of that genre on the review defeats that. He or she is then writing the review for fans of the series, not Joe Gamer. Fans of the series are already going to buy the game. Giving a fanboy review is not only disingenuous, it also undermines the nature of the review process and the credibility of the publication. It also perpetuates the "Core Gamer" debacle by giving games like MGS "OMG teh C3ll 10/10!!!1" while non-traditional titles like WiiFit are thrown under a bus because they're not hardcore enough.
With this type of attitude, gaming will have a hard time ever losing the teenage-geek-in-a-basement stigma.
Anyway, that is the wrong way to do things. You put the most neutral person possible on a review, not the person who hates or loves the genre or game series. If publications do that, they're just setting themselves up for a skewed review that doesn't accurately represent what the game really offers.
Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/