Well I think it's a valid point that most of our reviewers in this industry are barely above the "hardcore teenagers" in maturity, if at all. The are 99% 20-30 year old males who review more on what they want to see do well than on a solid platform of critical theory.

They are people too, lol. I'm pretty much just like what you described, to be honest...but man, Braid is a good game.

I think we all know where I stand on the subject of reviewers. Reviews, by nature, will always differ. That's a given considering the nature of humanity and its likes/dislikes.

But it's hard to argue that video game reviewers, by and large, are little more than frothing fanboys. All you have to do is look at the average review and its comments like "oscar worthy dialogue" or "engaging story" and you want to vomit.

I seriously question how many of these people have actively studied anything past videogames their entire lives. Not to sound elitist - which I'm sure I am right now - but it's hard to respect a reviewer of anything if you question whether they've ever analyzed a Kubrick film, broken down a Dickens novel, or studied a Munch painting for more than a few moments.

You're not going to give a mature review of any piece of art or media if you don't have a solid frame of reference to compare and contrast it to competing media. Reviewing in a vacuum is worthless; nay, it's worse than that. Some people take a reviewer's word as being professional and rounded when in 90+% of game reviews, they are anything but.

It's sad, really. Not all reviewers are this way (Yahtzee is a great example) but I question the intelligence and maturity of most reviews I read past the pure technical aspects of a game.

Doubt it.

I'm choosing to ignore reviewers, naysayers, whatever, and just playing the game with pretty much no other input...haven't played the Fallout games, never finished Oblivion but didn't like it.

I've got a few hours into Fallout and I like it. I'll say more later I guess.

Several hours in and I might be going to the store tomorrow. It's definitely no Fallout, especially with the lack of humor, but it's also somewhat better than Oblivion, I'll give it a few more hours before ordering it.

@rocketpig. The problem is that what people in general (excluding a couple like DTG) want from their games is a good time. Studying Munch paintings and reading Dickens isn't going to make you any better at saying whether a game is fun or not.
Is there really any point in comparing two different media with completely different aims?

The only media that I can really see games being compared to is the summer blockbuster movies which have largely the same aim.

I will pass up on Fallout 3 it just looks boring. You aimlessly collect millions of useless items and have to work out your mission objectives.

I'm not as drastic as you, but I buy games following my instinct, if the game description or demo is good for my tastes, and also reviewers I trust and public opinion on forums and other media I know aren't frequented mainly by graphics whores not caring for contents and gameplay. And obviously I follow opinions if they are well justified by arguments, either for or against (it may happen that an argument against, according to someone, is favourable to my eyes). So yes, I don't follow naysayers too, but neither yes-men.

Rath, I have no problem with things just being "fun". There are plenty of things I enjoy without being mentally challenged by it. But when reviewing ant kind of game that involves story, pacing, intrigue, and dialogue, other comparisons need to be made. If a reviewer wants to call a game "enjoyable fluff", good for them. I respect that opinion a hell of a lot more than the ridiculous adjectives that have been thrown at games like MGS, GTA, and Bioshock over the past 15 months.

Many people like the Blockbuster movie, myself included. But I don't pretend they're anything more than mindless fun.