Well I wouldn't say that commercial success is a particularly good metric for quality, at the current time it is no worse of a metric than most reviewers ...

To a certain extent videogame reviewers at the moment are a lot like movie critics who have only ever seen Horror, Science Fiction, Fantasy and Action movies ... When these reviewers are then shown a romantic comedy, family movie, character drama or (pretty much) any other genre they are very critical because it doesn't perform well based on the metrics they developed watching Horror, Science Fiction, Fantasy or action movies.

/thread

;)

@ usul. How can it not be? Commercial success is the only measure because it's real. Not just 1 or 2 peoples opinions but all of the game buying public. Obviously every person is entitled to their own opinion but at the end of the day it's just that. Their personal opinion. They can also be in the minority of one. ALL i was saying was that the game buying public has voted with their wallets. That is surely the only "real" measure of quality because it's what the majority want.

Agreed.  How long do you think it will take before the video game industry gets well rounded critics?

I'm not a huge movie buff, so I'm not sure how long it took before we got sopisticated movie crititcs.

I think you are exactly right about this - but unfortunately there's not much chance of changing that specific demographic's opinionated mindset, even if you explain things to them clearly like this.  That's just the way things are.

So the HD consoles, with the games where you run around shootiing, killing, and maiming endlessly in fps and 3ps games are catering to fans of Jaque Cocteau and David Lynch?

LOL.

I, for one, don't really like "jack-of-all-genres" critics. In my opinion, things should be criticized mostly within their own genre. I don't want to read a review of Drunken Master by a critic that is not tuned into the finesses of the genre, nor do I want to read complaints about how ridiculous the plot is, how shallow the characters are etc. Those are not the things I'm looking for in that genre, although if by some miracle they happen to be present, I won't object.

The same goes for game reviews. Each game should be primarily reviewed by an expert on the genre in question. It's also always a plus if you get in opinions from other reviewers from the other side of the fence, but the majority should come from the expert. That way seasoned gamers can distinguish games that interest them from the rest, and those new to gaming can get a glimpse of how they might experience the game.

Going on a slight side track, the notion that everybody has an opinion and all are just as valid is wrong. For the majority of the people, that's how things are, but there are people that, simply put, have better opinions than the rest. Those are the people who set trends, people whose work is admired by the masses. For an enlighting essay on the subject of taste, please read Taste for Makers.

The comparison of The Dark Knight to Le Clown Sobbing (a fictional movie that represents critically acclaimed, but unpopular movies) is ill conceived. Dark Knight received critical acclaim and is popular.

I think a comparison that is more fitting would be (though, neither can really fit in to any category all of the time- for example Wii Sports' reception has soured over the years from the hardcore critics):

High brow: Il Postino, Bottle Rocket (Wes Anderson comedies in general)
Good reception all around: Dark Knight, Titanic, Forrest Gump
Pop: Shrek 3, Terminator 3, Vin Diesel Movies
Crap: Stuff that fails critically and commercially.

Hard Core/High Brow: So many that I can't think of a specific one right now.
Good reception all around: Halo series, Mario Kart, MGS, Final Fantasy, Call of Duty
Pop: Wii Sports, Generic FPS that sell 500k+, Madden (again, Madden and Wii Sports get good reviews but then the critics bitch about it all year), Carnival Games
Crap: Imagine Babyz.

If every consumer would have had your quality standards than 360 would have sold around 80 million by now, with PS3 and Wii at exactly zero.

I game on Wii more often than on my 360, but use the DS about double those combined. Does that make me a casual non-gamer?

(I love the term non-gamer by the way, it takes a hyper intelectual brain in overdrive to call someone that plays games you don't like a non-gamer).

Oh please, Leo. I see PS3/360 fans complain about reviews every time a game they expect to review well doesn't. I remember people saying Uncharted was robbed because it was <90 on metacritic: that Resistance was a much better game than advertised: I remember people complaining about any 8.0 that MGS4 review got; I remember people insisting that Banjo was a much better game than was suggested by reviewers; I remember Sony fans insisting 1up was in Microsoft's pocket after their crazy Gears of War review, and insisting that the EGM Chief Editor, Dan Hsu, was an Xbot. The list goes on and on. PS3/360 fans complain about reviews with regularity -- and likely, I could find you doing the same, if I were to scrounge through your ten thousand post history.

Of course, like any fanboy (Nintendo ones included) you only complain when the reviewer or reviewers don't suit your personal agenda. When they do suit your agenda -- for example, when you want to show that the Wii "clearly" has worse games than the PS3/360 this year -- then suddenly reviewers are all okay, and the system works after all.

Or you could be like me: I consistently state that reviews are out of whack and that a drastic overhaul needs to be made. Even when the reviewers agree with me, seeing as my favorite game this year was Braid.