At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter why a publication writes reviews the way that it does. All that matters is how consonant they are with your own opinions. If their reviews tend to be similar to your own experiences, then it's a good bet to try other products that they review well, and the converse.
Does it really matter whether the reason for a review is the writer's heartfelt opinion or because the marketing department is able to line up advertisers who really tend to have good products? Or maybe they've got a llittle genie that lives in a box and tells them what to write. Who cares? If the reviews work for you, then use them. And on the other hand, even if the reviews are heartfelt, if the reviewers' personal tastes clash with yours, those reviews will be useless.
-CWuestefeld
So, in that case, what would be the reason of existence for reviewing sites? To give you a pat in the back for choosing a game? To scream to you: "You poor being, we feel sorry that you employed your hard earned dollars in buying such a awful game"? Last time I checked, review sites existed for giving you some feedback over if products are really worth the money they demand from you, and wether they live to the expectations put behind them (not the marketing dollars, but the buzz created around the product) or not.
Besides, a good written article pinpointing a game weak and strong points really gives prestige to a reviewer and to a site. Cold, almost mechanical reviews written by a guy without talent for writing and without illusion for gaming are easy to catch, and people tries to stay away for them, as they don't transmit anything about the game. I don't care if the game is good or not, I want to know WHY it's good or not, and what are the personal feelings of the reviewer about the game. If my taste clash or not it's another story, but I discovered quite good games thanks to hard-working reviewers that said this or the other game was good, even if it wasn't exactly in line with my personal preferences.
Kane & Lynch could be a heavily publicised game on Eidos part, but there were not any buzz around it, gamers were not waiting for it to be released. The game looked good, and the premise was original, and, with proper handling, it could end up being a solid game, but IO Interactive borked this time and transformed the game into a trainwreck, this was evident from gameplay videos. It's no wonder that Eidos wanted to milk the cow even if they have no bucket to fill.
BTW, Opposable Thumbs
coverage on the issue unearthed a interesting comment over the true nature of the firing of Mr. Gerstmann. Who knows, it may be true, I know more than enough about what's going in the scenes behind game reviewing sites, and it's not the first time it happens, you only need connections and to know about the skeletons in the closet to assure you're not fired.
Recent Posts
