Reviewing the Reviewers: Introduction

Hello readers and welcome to the introduction to a new and permanent segment of the blog called Reviewing the Reviewers, if you didn't notice the title. Which you might not have although you'd be pretty silly if you missed the big shiny title but read this part.

Anyway.

One of the reasons I started this blog was the dislike I developed for video game journalists on account of their pretentiousness and inability to publish anything worthwhile when it comes to reviews. While the business of reviewing a product is inherently biased, the problem I find is that many reviewers are unable to step back and list their likes and dislikes in order to allow their readers to make an informed decision. Granted, reviews are basically opinions but if reviewers want to claim that they are experts that provide a legitimate and reliable information, then they should at least try to act like it. The problem I find is that a lot of reviewers walk into a game with a closed mind and will only point out the flaws of the game without really pointing out its merits as well. Basically, I have an issue with the balance of most pieces written by game reviewers. Sure, if I dislike a game, I will criticise it endlessly but I can recognise its merits and (rather begrudgingly) can respect it for what it does right. Same goes with games that I do like. While I will drone on and on about how much I love the game, I recognise that no game is perfect and that the flaws they have, while they may not matter to me, may matter to someone else. That's why I try to give my reviews balance. 

Furthermore, the problem with video game reviewers on the big professional sites is that they present themselves as experts and don't necessarily acknowledge that their reviews are merely their opinions of a game. To the contrary, there are many reviewers that consider their reviews as fact and that if they didn't enjoy it, no one else will. This clearly isn't the right way to do things as people are different. 

In keeping with the theme of balance, I will recognise the merits of opinion-based rather than fact-based reviewers and their reviews. Just by reading their reviews, it's easy to see that reviewers are passionate about video games. That probably why they got into that profession in the first place. This passion is great when they approach a game with their full attention. They pay great attention to the things that make a game great and will nitpick on the smallest details. However, the fact that passion trumps reason is something to worry about as it leads to unfair biases and in a field that claims to provide expert advice to consumers, that's a problem. Considering as well that they have a wide audience of people who listen to them without a shred of independent thought (maybe a bit harsh, let's call them sheep instead) and make up their mind solely on reviews. 

On a less serious note though, the reviews I give of reviewers are meant purely for comedic effect and may not actually represent the person I am critiquing. For all we know, they may be nice people (probably not, but still). Furthermore, I'd like to clarify that this is once again just my opinion and should be taken as such.