Last November the next-generation of gaming consoles arrived and alongside them came a slew of launch titles. This is significant because after years of gaming, last November was also the first time I started paying attention to game reviews and I couldn't help but notice how horrendously flawed they were/are. A review is supposed to be an objective article about a game based upon what that game is supposed to be and how closely the developers have achieved that vision, however, the reviews I read back in November - and those that have been published since - were little more than opinions of what a game should be based upon other releases and the reviewers' personal preferences. Take Knack for example, a somewhat controversial title, and look at the reviews. From the beginning it was made clear that Knack was going to be an incredibly accessible game, a game that would introduce children and first-time buyers into the world of gaming, but one that could also be challenging to the more experienced gamers amongst us. It was never meant to be deep or built around complex gaming mechanics that would be beyond the grasp of newcommers or children, but reviewers hammered the title for these very reasons. They complained about a "lack of robust skill sets" and "basic gameplay", they slated it for "lacking gameplay mechanics" and even go as far as criticising its simplisity - one of the core foundations the game was built upon!
Now for a more recent foray into game reviews and one that had me reading the IGN review of DriveClub. The following section really caught my attention as something that truly emphasises my point:
'Driveclub is the best-looking racing game I’ve ever seen on a console, but down deep it’s a more modest, conventional arcade racer than the sprawling, open-world types we commonly see today.'
Again, the game is not perfect and as such doesn't deserve a perfect score, that isn't what I'm arguing for here, what I want to get across is the fact that the reviewers opinion is obviously based upon experiences outside of DriveClub. In this case I think we can safely bet that the extraneous influence is Forza Horizon 2. DriveClub was never advertised as open-world, nor were the words "open-world" ever mentioned by any member of the development team when they showed the game to us, so why should DriveClub be marked down because the reviewer may prefer an open-world racer compared to a closed-circuit racer? Well, it shouldn't. A reviewer is not entitled to his/her opinion when writing a game review and they are not entitled to the experiences outside of the current game they are playing unless it is directly relevant i.e. commenting upon the previous iteration of a franchise.
Game reviews need to change, and not for our sake but for the sake of those who earn a living writing them. I haven't based a buying decision on a review in over five years and don't believe I ever will again if the system doesn't change. I prefer to watch a stream of a potential purchase and then make my own decisions. Reviews are swiftly becomming irrelevant and are now mostly frequented by the rabid fanboys that toss their vitriol at one another in the comment sections. That's my opinion anyway, a review of reviews if you will. I'd love to hear your opinions, not specifically about the games I have mentioned above, but instances in which you have read a review and dismissed it as irrelevant. Perhaps like me, you rarely read them anymore anyway? And if so, how do you make your buying decisions?
Edit: I apologise for only using PlayStation 4 games as examples, but as a PlayStation 4 owner I only read reviews relevant to me.
