It's just one guy's opinion. I got over it rather quickly.

Again, though--as I stated in some other post, even in games I don't like, I can see the quality and the flaws. I can look at Pokemon, Madden, or whatever and say "It's not for me but I can see why its audience would like it. If you're amongst that audience, this is exactly what you would like about it." Instead of saying "I doing like this and you shouldn't like it, either. Here's why!"

There has to be balance. Jim normally does a good job of this--though he overreacts a lot. There was some big game recently, that he panned while giving a lesser, similar game a great review and a higher score. I was okay with that because his opinion lined up with mine. I can't get mad when the pendulum swings the other way.

*Edit* thought I was in the Jim Sterling thread!

They are helpful, most games have inflated scores on mc anyways so they put some balance

This.

Ridiculous scores all around, especially the 10's out there.

But every player may react to different elements of gameplay, despite of how perfect it can be. That´s about tastes and that´s why there are different genres of games. Some people, for example, never dig into racing games, no matter how good the gameplay may be. I believe that a reviewer should analyse gameplay elements on how they work technically, rather than analysing them on how they work for him personally.

As another example, I think Tekken is excellent but I never get used to the controls. I always preferred the Virtua Fighter approach to the mechanics of 3d fighting games rather than Tekken. But I can´t say the gameplay is bad just because I don´t like it. I just prefer it to be different but as it is , and as it proposes to be, the controls and mechanics work pretty well.

But when you say "good" gameplay...who is setting that standard? Who determines what makes a great racing game or a great fighting game?

I just don't think it's possible to objectively measure a video game, outside of a tech analysis like a Digital Foundry article. So much of a game is how we as players respond to it. Two players can experience the same set of mechanics in entirely different ways. Let's take the hot-button topic du jour, Breath of the Wild, as an example. Reviewer A and reviewer B play the game. They both summarize accurately (and objectively) the mechanics of breakable weapons. Reviewer A lists breakable weapons as a con, since it made the gaming experience frustrating for him. Reviewer B lists breakable weapons as a plus, since it made the gaming experience more challenging for him. Who's right?

A review can't just be a laundry list of modes and technical benchmarks. There needs to be analysis, commentary, insight. This all comes from personal standards and experiences.

One of the reasons why reviews does not work anymore.

Only if you exclusively use aggregators without reading actual reviews.

What should a review be about? A reviewers opinion or what the game tries to achieve?

Someone who doesn't like certain genres in games obviously shouldn't review games in that genre.

If my approach on a certain type of game is, "I don't personally like it, but the majority does, so my rating will be lower" should stop reviewing at all.
Being objective is what counts here.

It's only logical that even universally acclaimed titles don't suit to every single person, and reviewers are people like everyone else. Except the surprisingly low score on Uncharted, I don't really have a problem with the other reviews. Especially on The Last of Us, I agree on that one 100%.

So how would people who usually don't like certain genres but are generally interested in the games get their information then? Having only glowing reviews from people who like the game anyway helps no one. We need reviews from all kinds of viewpoints.

People like me have trouble finding any accurate reviews because most reviewers don't put the weight on the things that I'm interested in. And then people like you come along requesting that even fewer people should review games.