I would say, outside of maybe the ability to write prose longer and more polished, I am hard pressed to see game journalists being more competent and professional than a number of better posters on here.  Can anyone fill me in exactly what they do differently that has them doing what they do for a living compared to people who post on here for free?  In more extreme cases of them, they get WAY out there, like the way people do on here.

This point is coming to my mind when I see the latest N4G stuff on this site now as news feeds.  It is ranking right up there with some of the more notable trollish posts I have seen people put on here.

they are only seen as more competent because people treat them like they are more competent. i agree posters here are better writers than a lot of gaming journalists, they just know someone/got found/started their own site.

no one has the same opinion on anything is the problem with reviewers of all types. Everyone is going to disagree on some level with what the reviewers are putting out.

The escapist reviewers are pretty good, they dont troll or anything like that or tick off the fanboys like on ign and other sites.

The question is will those good forum post writers will also be good when they have to write it under the same conditions as the game journalists.

I know a mate who had to review FFXII in less than 3 days and later one gave Assasins Creed 97. His AC review was called bullshit by the readers and he admitted to me he had to write a very good review because Ubisoft paid very good money to get the game on the cover. He also told me I may complain so much as I wanted and he will not give a crap because he has a family to take care for and don't want to lose his job.

Overall, they usually are. No offense.

The problem is not with not with the reviewers, but the people who read but not understand them. Core Consumers are gettin stupider.

I have seen a lot of "journalists" (both game journalists and others) who write worse, are far more biased, and are less knowledgeable than the average person commenting on their article.

Almost all of them are crap and just random forum posters at best.

If you are arguing from the point of putting together better constructed sentences that are more polished, and looking like they were edited better, I would agree with you.  But , in regards to knowledge of the industry and the opinions expressed are they?

Nope, it's all about being in the right place at the right time. Truthfully, the fanboy ooze I see on some "professional" reviewers screams someone who has a personal bias and agenda to push. I don't think at least half of them are deserving of their position. There are also some low-quality posters, but that will be true for any forum. Likewise, I think if you took the creme-de-la-creme from places like this and replaced the "pros" with them, things would improve dramatically.

Conversely, there is a chance that they go in more qualified, but get jaded, or forced by higher-ups to go a certain way. (Advertising dollars probably play a large part in this...) A game that is "okay" may be forced to have things played up, whereas something that won't draw in money is told to be controversial- extract on the flaws, give it a low score, and draw more hits (or sales for magazines), thus more revenue from other things.

Continuing along things, you then have people like Pachter, to which I would guess that a majority of posters here could make better guesses than he does. Man, he's got a cushy job... and I see the same flaws in him as I do the other "pros." And I think we all know Pachter's flaws...