I voted for "who cares". Just for sake of conversation, as the topic about game journalism is more interesting than game journalism itself.
1. Journalists must be required to complete the single-player story mode of the game they're reviewing (if it exists) and participate in at least 20 hours of multiplayer (if it exists). With Sandbox or open-world games that have many sidequests, they must complete at least 75% of the available quests in the game. With sports games, they must have played all the modes extensively and have the appropriate game saves. They must then upload a screenshot of their game save as well as pertinent statistics or if possible, upload the whole file into the review. The purpose of this is to prevent partial reviews from getting posted. There are many irresponsible reviewers who play a game halfway or take part in only one online match then make a score.
I like the idea, but if the game sucks from the beginning, I don't see a point why you should play the any longer. If you review the game and say the review is based on the first five minutes because it sucks, it's an honest review. Otherwise it's like you'd have to be kicked to the balls for two days before you could say you don't like it.
2. Journalists must have played at least 3 other games of the same genre to qualify to review any game. For example, if I were to review NBA 2k15, I must have played NBA 2k12-14. This is to ensure that the reviewer understands and appreciates the genre to a certain degree. There are reviewers out there who make scores on games they don't like from the very beginning and they tend to allow their prejudice to cloud their reason.
Why? If you're new to the genre and review the game for others new to the genre, the review is much more spot on than a review from someone that's fan of the genre.
3. Journalists must make their scores based on the launch day product. It's unfair for the public if they create their scores after patches have fixed the game breaking issues that the disc came with. In cases where the online component is a major deal but is broken on launch day, the review can be put on hold while servers get back online - after all, the review is about the game, not the server. If the issue persists past the first two weeks, then the review can be posted. This may sound unfair but you can't give WoW, for example, a 0 because servers are crowded on launch day and you can't log in.
I think the game should be reviewed "as is". If you review patched product, then you do. However, if the disc version has known issues that are fixed only by online patch, the review shoul mention it.
4. Journalists and gaming publications must sign a contract that states they did not accept any money or favors from publishers or any other individuals as they review a game. While this won't necessarily prevent them from actually taking money, it will give gamers leverage if a particular reviewer is found to be corrupt later on.
This would actually be fun to see. With all the websites being ad-funded, it would be interesting to see how'd they make money. What you essentially suggest here is that the game journalism should be only on mainstrean/non games related publications (all the "hardcore" gamers reading Cosmopolitan because it has the best game reviews)
Most likely you'd get the most objective reviews in the end if the reviews were made by employees of the platform holder that the reviewed games are on.
5. Gaming publications must only hire reviewers who actually play games consistently and not as a casual hobby. After all, the people who check out reviews and care most about the outcomes are core gamers so the reviews they ought to see must come from their own ranks as well. This means that a woman, for example, who plays Call of Duty for an hour a week can't be allowed to post a review on it.
Again, if you play it once a week and make the review for people who play once a week too, I don't see the point here.
