Leigh Alexander, of GameSetWatch, has recently written a blog regarding the bias and "fanboyism" that appears not only in the average gamer, but in professional reviewers as well ...
Game reviewers are taken to task often brutally if the readership catches even a whiff of bias. Lately, discussions of game journalism have revolved around whether reviewers should be “fully objective” or not – as if such a thing were possible. Game reviewers are cut of the same cloth as their audience, and having made their career out of it, might even be more likely than the audience is to have a few hairs rise on the back of their neck at the sound of the Hyrule Overworld theme, no matter in what context they hear it. They’ll never be able to completely resist the flood of positive association they feel when they see a familiar character, hear a familiar tune – a positive flood that can, and probably often does, influence a positive impression of a game.
In this Metacritic-driven era, then, where game companies must show high scores to their investors and where those scores determine their next moves, it’s love that makes the world go round. Fanboyism rules the video game industry.
I would like you to briefly indulge me by participating in an exercise. Remove all of the mascots and familiar faces from Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and replace them with original constructs. Notice, if you will, the somewhat clumsy user interface, the high percentage of total content that must be unlocked to be enjoyed, the complete lack of usability of the Wii controls, and the lack of significant graphical or gameplay progression over the previous generation. It's true that even then, you’d have a good game. But would you have a 10 game?
News Story attached to:
Submit a Story
Register
Get Started
Webmaster Tools
Comments with -5 or lower "thumbs" are removed from display.
And this is a very intruiging argument to say the least.
I personally don't think that any game that is or will be created will ever be 'perfect'.
I can use the recent GameInformer as an example. Rainbos Six Vegas 2 and Army of Two were reviewed back-to-back, R6V2 getting a 9 (and a 9.5), AoT getting a 7 (and a 6.5). One highlight that GI gave R6V2 was praising it's Co-Op, whilst with AoT, they said it was a "buddy-game" over and over and over again. Mind you, R6V2 is basically the same as it's predecessor, with three or four more noticeable adjustments. Don't get me wrong, I'd definitely give R6V2 a higher rating than AoT (which did get a fair rating), but I couldn't help but notice the bias remarks on R6V2 to AoT when reading them over, conveniently next to one another.
I imagine people are leaving comments on that blog itself with some not so kind remarks as well. It's too bad really, because some of these things are just so glaringly obvious that you really do need to have a sort of "blindfold" on not to notice them, and it seems that really is the case for a lot of people out there.
I am European though.