On Reviews

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

The scary thing is that, with her, we can never know whether she's serious or joking. She is seriously broken, after all.
Love this funnier angle, by the way, I really missed that in this comic the past few months.

I was having a pretty awful day and this comic cheered me right up! Thanks!

This is scary. Last night, a friend of mine and I talked about the concept of Schrödinger's penis.

Have you been listening?

I love this xD I use the name Charlie when writing reviews for obvious reasons.

As for the readers doing more thing I was recently made an admin of a facebook group. I link good reviews and insights I see on there and get them more hits. I like to think I'm doing my part.

I guess we should be thankful she isn't a lesbian
fuck knows the puns would be multiplied

The last panel is solid gold, I'm cropping it and making it my phone wallpaper.

Grey you owe me some air freshener as I laughed so hard I farted.

Scrumpmonkey:
Is it me or is Erin getting exponentially cuter? Also Srodinger's pussy? Really? -_-

I was thinking of a different word. >.>

Also, does that mean her box is locked in a box?

I'm horrible.

My hypothesis, or conjecture, if you will, (people so often misuse the word "theory", but that's just me being picky because of my physics background) is that gamers, and the geek culture, in general, seems to be unhealthily preoccupied with things that make them angry, upset, depressed, or disgusted. Consequently, they fail to notice or take for granted the good things that do make them happy. They're just too intent on finding something to bitch about at every possible moment.

Probably laughed harder than was suitable. It was both cute and hilarious.

geizr:
My hypothesis, or conjecture, if you will, (people so often misuse the word "theory", but that's just me being picky because of my physics background) is that gamers, and the geek culture, in general, seems to be unhealthily preoccupied with things that make them angry, upset, depressed, or disgusted. Consequently, they fail to notice or take for granted the good things that do make them happy. They're just too intent on finding something to bitch about at every possible moment.

Now I know there is a wonderful joke in there to be made about Geeks/Gamers getting angry, upset, depressed and disgusted about women but I am way too tired to get it out.

OT: This has to be one of the best Critical Miss comics I've seen.

Ah, young miss Erin Stout. Ever the gentlewoman.

I have to stand up and salute Erin's dedication to such a horrible, horrible, borderline offensive pun. Not the writers; the writers had no choice. It's all Erin.

Sometimes Erin comes across as a female Yahtzee or Jim Sterling; it makes me wonder if the gaming community at large would embrace a female caustic reviewers like they have embraced the two loquacious Englishmen.

Viking Incognito:
Erin's facial expressions in the bottom row of panels are fucking classic.

agreed. Made me laugh

Funny panel, but to be honest I think the message is kind of misplaced. With something like video games opinions are always going to be divided, especially with the lines increasingly drawn between casuals and serious gamers. Also, I think a lot of it is also that people expect consistincy, a lot of attacks on journalists come from someone winding up in the position of "game journalist" for basically being a nerd's nerd, a serious gamer who knows pretty much everything about the medium. When you see a gradual shift in tone from a reviewer being critical of casual games, directed at the masses, to being more accepting of the kinds of games the casuals play and the industry wants to make, that's when the problems usually happen. When a reviewer has to start defending games based on arguements like "judging them on their own merits, right now" his credibility goes out the door, especially when he's supposed to be there due to their lengthy knowlege of the media and their abillity to put things into perspective. If your an expert who is accepted as one because you can compare a game now to one 10 years beforehand and find it lacking from a design standpoint (for example) and then refuse to do that (quite probably because of industry/publisher/advertising pressure) the big question is what point your expertise plays. You could literally just plug in a video game for a hobo and get the same kind of "on it's own merits" review.

I'll also say that game reviewers generally get paid by a publisher, whether it's physical media or digital, not based on a percentage of ad hits. Now granted, by not making any money a publisher can go down leading to lack of employment, but that's very indirect. I'll also say that if people want to deal with ad blockers on their sites and encourage people not to use them, they need to be more careful about what ads they accept and how obnoxious they happen to be. If I come to your website I do not want to see 10 other pages open at the same time, or some animated figure scroll around the screen, obstructing my view, until I acknowlege it, or some obnoxious voiceover shooting out from a video in the corner. The problem with online ads is they tend to be utterly obnoxious, and the guys running sites rarely bother to worry about anything other than how much they will be paid for the ad. Basically when the ads themselves chill out and stay out of my way, I might consider not running software to shut them off... Oh yes, and then there is the whole bloody issues of tracking cookies and crap. Even with decent online security/ad blocking (though by no means perfect obviously) I routinely pull hundreds of tracking programs, cookies, and other crap out of my system which cumulatively do slow it down when it gets to a point. Not to mention that I don't really care for the idea that some advertiser wants to "track my web surfing habits" or whatever the heck.

Let me put it another way, even if I literally believed game journalists would starve due to blocking ads, I wouldn't really care, because you'd pretty much be argueing they make their living by being professionally obnoxious. Starvation might actually be considered too good for the people who create and spam a lot of these ads.

I have to say, Critical Miss has really been a hit on all levels lately, a huge improvement over what it was like just six weeks or so ago. Keep up the awesome work.

People keep saying how great panel 5 is, but those eyes kind of creep me out. Panels 6 and 7 however is truly the personification of self-satisfaction and it absolutely *makes* the whole comic work brilliantly.

best comic ever XD

saintdane05:
image

This... oh dear lord, it is the best picture of Erin ever drawn!

I would say taht this strip was just purrfect.

If it's bigger on the inside than out, you've hit all the nerd high-points. I especially liked how Erin's words poured into her coworker's ear; what will it take to get them out?

Therumancer:
Funny panel, but to be honest I think the message is kind of misplaced. With something like video games opinions are always going to be divided, especially with the lines increasingly drawn between casuals and serious gamers. Also, I think a lot of it is also that people expect consistincy, a lot of attacks on journalists come from someone winding up in the position of "game journalist" for basically being a nerd's nerd, a serious gamer who knows pretty much everything about the medium. When you see a gradual shift in tone from a reviewer being critical of casual games, directed at the masses, to being more accepting of the kinds of games the casuals play and the industry wants to make, that's when the problems usually happen. When a reviewer has to start defending games based on arguements like "judging them on their own merits, right now" his credibility goes out the door, especially when he's supposed to be there due to their lengthy knowlege of the media and their abillity to put things into perspective. If your an expert who is accepted as one because you can compare a game now to one 10 years beforehand and find it lacking from a design standpoint (for example) and then refuse to do that (quite probably because of industry/publisher/advertising pressure) the big question is what point your expertise plays. You could literally just plug in a video game for a hobo and get the same kind of "on it's own merits" review.

I'll also say that game reviewers generally get paid by a publisher, whether it's physical media or digital, not based on a percentage of ad hits. Now granted, by not making any money a publisher can go down leading to lack of employment, but that's very indirect.

This is wrong on literally every level and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Let me put it another way, even if I literally believed game journalists would starve due to blocking ads, I wouldn't really care, because you'd pretty much be argueing they make their living by being professionally obnoxious. Starvation might actually be considered too good for the people who create and spam a lot of these ads.

image

Definitely the best expressions I've seen in ages, can't say that I enjoyed this enough. Thanks guys

Therumancer:
Funny panel, but to be honest I think the message is kind of misplaced. With something like video games opinions are always going to be divided, especially with the lines increasingly drawn between casuals and serious gamers. Also, I think a lot of it is also that people expect consistincy, a lot of attacks on journalists come from someone winding up in the position of "game journalist" for basically being a nerd's nerd, a serious gamer who knows pretty much everything about the medium. When you see a gradual shift in tone from a reviewer being critical of casual games, directed at the masses, to being more accepting of the kinds of games the casuals play and the industry wants to make, that's when the problems usually happen. When a reviewer has to start defending games based on arguements like "judging them on their own merits, right now" his credibility goes out the door, especially when he's supposed to be there due to their lengthy knowlege of the media and their abillity to put things into perspective. If your an expert who is accepted as one because you can compare a game now to one 10 years beforehand and find it lacking from a design standpoint (for example) and then refuse to do that (quite probably because of industry/publisher/advertising pressure) the big question is what point your expertise plays. You could literally just plug in a video game for a hobo and get the same kind of "on it's own merits" review.

I'll also say that game reviewers generally get paid by a publisher, whether it's physical media or digital, not based on a percentage of ad hits. Now granted, by not making any money a publisher can go down leading to lack of employment, but that's very indirect. I'll also say that if people want to deal with ad blockers on their sites and encourage people not to use them, they need to be more careful about what ads they accept and how obnoxious they happen to be. If I come to your website I do not want to see 10 other pages open at the same time, or some animated figure scroll around the screen, obstructing my view, until I acknowlege it, or some obnoxious voiceover shooting out from a video in the corner. The problem with online ads is they tend to be utterly obnoxious, and the guys running sites rarely bother to worry about anything other than how much they will be paid for the ad. Basically when the ads themselves chill out and stay out of my way, I might consider not running software to shut them off... Oh yes, and then there is the whole bloody issues of tracking cookies and crap. Even with decent online security/ad blocking (though by no means perfect obviously) I routinely pull hundreds of tracking programs, cookies, and other crap out of my system which cumulatively do slow it down when it gets to a point. Not to mention that I don't really care for the idea that some advertiser wants to "track my web surfing habits" or whatever the heck.

Let me put it another way, even if I literally believed game journalists would starve due to blocking ads, I wouldn't really care, because you'd pretty much be argueing they make their living by being professionally obnoxious. Starvation might actually be considered too good for the people who create and spam a lot of these ads.

image

I'd go into my normal spiel about their lack of choice in the matter, the basis of all business, etc etc, but quite frankly, after that wall of delusion and that last comment, I'd rather not tell you, in the hollow hope that you'll get fed up with the site, leave and not come back.

I actually have lots of conversations like this...no scratch that stumble into conversations like this

Oh my god this was amazing, I actually laughed out loud for once. That;s something I don't normally do now. Thank you for that.

*Sigh* Well, still better than Ctrl-Alt-Del.

Mournblade94:
One day perhaps this comic strip will be funny.

Critical Miss is certainly apt when it comes to humour. The joke was good when Sheldon's girlfriend stated it. The use of it here was clumsy and demonstrates a lack of comedic talent.

Better not ever print a compilation of them. Order of the stick this is not.

If you can seriously attribute talent of any form to Big Bang Theory, your opinion on this is worth exactly zero; it's an atrocious show that pretends to be fondly satirizing the subject matter but is in fact simply mocking it, populated with boring characters, hit and miss acting, and writing that's less funny and more just pathetic.

Grey Carter:
image

I fixed it because it is too perfect to not have showing correctly >.>...

As for the comic, I don't think its a uniquely misogynistic thing, there are some strong undertones of homophobia whenever a man writes a "bad" review.

Even if the punchline was a bit predictable, I still laughed.

Also, nice double entendre with 'pussy'.

saintdane05:
image

This... oh dear lord, it is the best picture of Erin ever drawn!

I would say taht this strip was just purrfect.

spoiler alert: you cannot un-see.

the comic is great, but that picture specifically the outlining is so bold that it looks like she's been cut out and pasted back in
it makes her look oddly like a cardboard cutout

i do wonder why :s

Oh, Erin, didn't you know?

If you give a game way too high of a score, people will lightly question your critical judgment.

If you give a game the score it deserves, they will scream, "How dare you actually do your job of helping us make intelligent purchasing decisions!? Critics aren't supposed to be critical!"

The obvious solution is to just give every game that comes out (or at least every AAA game) a 10/10. Then everyone will be happy!

Grey Carter:

Therumancer:
Funny panel, but to be honest I think the message is kind of misplaced. With something like video games opinions are always going to be divided, especially with the lines increasingly drawn between casuals and serious gamers. Also, I think a lot of it is also that people expect consistincy, a lot of attacks on journalists come from someone winding up in the position of "game journalist" for basically being a nerd's nerd, a serious gamer who knows pretty much everything about the medium. When you see a gradual shift in tone from a reviewer being critical of casual games, directed at the masses, to being more accepting of the kinds of games the casuals play and the industry wants to make, that's when the problems usually happen. When a reviewer has to start defending games based on arguements like "judging them on their own merits, right now" his credibility goes out the door, especially when he's supposed to be there due to their lengthy knowlege of the media and their abillity to put things into perspective. If your an expert who is accepted as one because you can compare a game now to one 10 years beforehand and find it lacking from a design standpoint (for example) and then refuse to do that (quite probably because of industry/publisher/advertising pressure) the big question is what point your expertise plays. You could literally just plug in a video game for a hobo and get the same kind of "on it's own merits" review.

I'll also say that game reviewers generally get paid by a publisher, whether it's physical media or digital, not based on a percentage of ad hits. Now granted, by not making any money a publisher can go down leading to lack of employment, but that's very indirect.

This is wrong on literally every level and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Let me put it another way, even if I literally believed game journalists would starve due to blocking ads, I wouldn't really care, because you'd pretty much be argueing they make their living by being professionally obnoxious. Starvation might actually be considered too good for the people who create and spam a lot of these ads.

image

Your image got cut/blocked by I imagine it was something fairly sarcastic.

Still, I respect you enough (unlike my other responder) to be willing to go through this with you to some extent. Your saying I'm wrong on every point so let's start with the most basic one:

Point #1: Journalists are paid by publishers. The point here being that those writing for something like say "Game Informer" or most websites do not themselves own or control the website, rather they are paid by a magazine to do columns/reviews/reports on subject matter that will interest people, drawing them to that publication (digital or print). The publication itself usually making money through ads that people will see when they view the features that drew their attention.

If your claiming I'm wrong about this, are you saying that Journalists/Critics/Etc... own the sources putting up their work? In some cases I suppose that might be true, but it would be an exception rather than the rule. You, MovieBob, and others who do features here don't actually own The Escapist for example, rather your paid by them. Similar to how others who have come and gone for whatever reason like Lisa Foiles, The Extra Credits team, and others were also paid by the site, rather than running it themselves which is of course why they disappeared without the site itself going down... entirely differant entities.

No criticims of The Escapist here, merely talking about the relationship between publishers and journalists.

Point #2: Someone hired to be a journalist, or more specifically a reviewer or critic is hired to write a column because they are presumably more informed about the subject matter than the average person. The point being to give an educated opinion based on a depth of knowlege and experience. This is what makes someone doing this professionally differant from say asking any hobo on the street his opinion on the subject matter. The idea being that someone looking to a periodical and it's experts wants an opinion that is more informed than what they are going to find elsewhere.

You'll notice that if you bother to look at most critics, there is usually a substantial amount of justification behind why their opinion matters. Say having been involved in gaming and with the industry for 20+ years, and being able to rattle off an encyclopedia-like knowlege base of the subject matter going back to obscure game cartridges your likely to have never heard of. While it happens it's pretty bloody rare to see a professional who is just there because he likes games, there is a decent amount of competition for people to do this kind of thing (which is why you see so many amateurs pimping themselves out on Youtube and the like hoping for Yahtzee-like breaks), and only a very few people make it.

When that depth of knowlege begins to become irrelevent to game reviews, one has to ask why there is such a huge vetting process involved in this whole thing.

I do not see how you can say that it's incorrect for me to expect a professional, especially one who is supposed to have long-term expertise, to review games within the scope of gaming.

To say otherwise is like argueing that my opinion on movies carries as much weight as Moviebob's (whose politics I pick on, but whose expertise I respect), and that I should be considered just as capable. Moviebob spent years working on his reputation and expertise, managed to get into a position where he's respected enough to get into pre-release screenings, attend meetings with guys like The RZA before their movies come out, and the like, and he can sit there and go on about the people involved, what they did before, the signifigance as the film as it applies to other related films, and put everything into context. If a movie is basically crap but manages to be entertaining popcorn fodder if your desperate for mental stimulation he's able to not only say so, but put it into an overall context to justify the opinion, oftentimes without resorting to political stances.

In short I believe certain standards come with being a professional. When a game comes out even if it's entertaining on a basic level, but objectively a piece of crap or outperformed by previous games that handled the same basic subject matter, game type, or style, I expect it be said and rated accordingly. No offense Grey, but I'm hardly alone in complaining reviews nowadays are top heavy, and pointing fingers at the problems.

Point #3: For you and the other guy (who responded even more rudely). I'm sorry but I see no real excuse for obnoxious ads and pop ups. I have no issue with tastefully done advertisements. My response, as over the top as it was, pretty much specified this. Basically if an ad is obnoxious enough where my blocker wants to stop it, that says something about the ad. If you want me to see the ads you put up on your site, it shouldn't be a matter of me having to lower my security, be considerate enough to simply make it so the ads aren't going to be a problem. Those running websites should be selective about who they get into business with and what kinds of ads are run, those creating ads should understand that an obnoxious/loud/impairing ad is not only something I'm going to block, but if I do see it through my blocker it's actually going to make me want nothing to do with the company in question.

Simply put I see no real reason to open myself up to obnoxiousness and pull even more tracking cookies and crap out of my system so the guys running the site can get paid more. Poor business planning on their part isn't my fault.

So in short, where am I wrong? Should I have no standards for those doing journalism and related things in the gaming industry? Should I not expect someone's pedigree/experiene/knowlege (especially if it's mentioned as part of their profile, and why you should listen to this guy as opposed to the competition) to matter, and call them on it when I see them stop making any effort to put things into context? Should I believe that those writing the columns and articles own and directly control the platform displaying them?

I suppose obnoxious is a matter of opinion, so I can't say I'm "right" about the ads and argue that one. Some people might not find them annoying, I on the other hand do. That said, I am curious how many people doing these articles get a direct cut of the advertising. Maybe you know something I don't, but from what I've seen the people running the sites/publishing the periodical get the money for the ads. You might know something I don't, perhaps your getting a cut of The Escapist's advertising profits for running "Critical Miss"?

No offense Grey, what I might say is not always nice (though it is well intentioned in the bif picture), but it's actually fairly well informed. I've been around fandom (not just video games but PnP RPGs, and all kinds of things) for a very long time now. Believe it or not there have been exposes (of a sort) explaining how the gaming industry, the website business, columns, etc... all work, to "demystify it" for the fans. Amazingly people tend to forget these things when they become inconveinent in an internet arguement. Although I admit in some cases I do wind up in an awkward position of not being able to reveal sources, this was a case back when I was argueing some PnP RPG stuff, you let on how you know something and then nobody is going to tell you anything. If you drop a bomb for a reason it's better to watch people squirm while denying it and wonder how you knew than rat out your sources. Just a general point.

Highschool physics helped me in my daily life, with something that was not related to maths or physics.

If I were a physics teacher right now I would have such a good comeback to all those "But how is this relevant to me" questions.

Highschool physics helped me in my daily life, with something that was not related to maths or physics.

If I were a physics teacher right now I would have such a good comeback to all those "But how is this relevant to me" questions.

lacktheknack:

Therumancer:
Funny panel, but to be honest I think the message is kind of misplaced. With something like video games opinions are always going to be divided, especially with the lines increasingly drawn between casuals and serious gamers. Also, I think a lot of it is also that people expect consistincy, a lot of attacks on journalists come from someone winding up in the position of "game journalist" for basically being a nerd's nerd, a serious gamer who knows pretty much everything about the medium. When you see a gradual shift in tone from a reviewer being critical of casual games, directed at the masses, to being more accepting of the kinds of games the casuals play and the industry wants to make, that's when the problems usually happen. When a reviewer has to start defending games based on arguements like "judging them on their own merits, right now" his credibility goes out the door, especially when he's supposed to be there due to their lengthy knowlege of the media and their abillity to put things into perspective. If your an expert who is accepted as one because you can compare a game now to one 10 years beforehand and find it lacking from a design standpoint (for example) and then refuse to do that (quite probably because of industry/publisher/advertising pressure) the big question is what point your expertise plays. You could literally just plug in a video game for a hobo and get the same kind of "on it's own merits" review.

I'll also say that game reviewers generally get paid by a publisher, whether it's physical media or digital, not based on a percentage of ad hits. Now granted, by not making any money a publisher can go down leading to lack of employment, but that's very indirect. I'll also say that if people want to deal with ad blockers on their sites and encourage people not to use them, they need to be more careful about what ads they accept and how obnoxious they happen to be. If I come to your website I do not want to see 10 other pages open at the same time, or some animated figure scroll around the screen, obstructing my view, until I acknowlege it, or some obnoxious voiceover shooting out from a video in the corner. The problem with online ads is they tend to be utterly obnoxious, and the guys running sites rarely bother to worry about anything other than how much they will be paid for the ad. Basically when the ads themselves chill out and stay out of my way, I might consider not running software to shut them off... Oh yes, and then there is the whole bloody issues of tracking cookies and crap. Even with decent online security/ad blocking (though by no means perfect obviously) I routinely pull hundreds of tracking programs, cookies, and other crap out of my system which cumulatively do slow it down when it gets to a point. Not to mention that I don't really care for the idea that some advertiser wants to "track my web surfing habits" or whatever the heck.

Let me put it another way, even if I literally believed game journalists would starve due to blocking ads, I wouldn't really care, because you'd pretty much be argueing they make their living by being professionally obnoxious. Starvation might actually be considered too good for the people who create and spam a lot of these ads.

image

I'd go into my normal spiel about their lack of choice in the matter, the basis of all business, etc etc, but quite frankly, after that wall of delusion and that last comment, I'd rather not tell you, in the hollow hope that you'll get fed up with the site, leave and not come back.

Not likely, I've been here for years, 2 more than you actually though I have 8k less posts. I also pay for premium membership so obviously I'm pretty committed.

That said, I had to actually sit back and think about how to respond to you or Grey after almost falling over laughing. Both of you seem to have not bothered to read my post leading up to that last comment. While somewhat sarcastic, it basically amounts to "there is no excuse for obnoxious ads of the sort a blocker stops", which is why people have ad blockers. If people want you to see the ads, make sure they aren't obnoxious. Now, I suppose you might really love pop ups, stickies getting in the way of you using a side, loud an obnoxious voice overs, 3 or more pages opening simultanouesly, and having tons of tracking garbage dumped into your computer... but truthfully I think that makes you far more unusual than it me delusional.

As far as the rest goes, I do find it interesting that your response is about the nature of business and the people involved having no choice. Something I disagree with, mind you, where my other major response from Grey pretty much said I was wrong about everything, which by association would mean he'd basically be saying things like how critics and journalists have direct control over the sources publishing them, as opposed to just being employees of whatever source they write for.

I do understand the realities of business and why things turn out the way they do, but I do not believe that things HAVE to be that way. I think the entire bloody system as it exists now is broken, as anyone who has done as much as complain about top heavy review scores, and blockades on reviews below a certain level before a game's release will generally agree with. I do not think it has to be that way though.

Journalistic integrity has been an issue with any kind of reporting, reviews, or criticism for as long as it's been around. Sources that have managed to maintain a degree of integrity have done so by seperating the business aspects of what they do, from the subject they cover. In the arena of gaming and coverage of games for example, I argue that a lot of the problems could be solved by publications simply not accepting money from those in the industry that they report on. Granted there is an understandable reason for a game company to want to advertise in a publication (physical or digital) aimed at gamers, but for obvious reasons it becomes impossible to seperate the business from the coverage since the publisher becomes dependant on the money paid by the people his writers are supposed to be criticisng. Gaming has gotten big enough nowadays where I feel sites and magazines dealing with gaming should exclusively sell ad space to good and services not directly tied to gaming. Running an ad for a car, a resteraunt chain, franklin mint collectibles, or whatever else is fine, but when you start accepting money from EA there is no way you can avoid your impartiality being questioned when dealing with their games. Papers like the New York Times and even smaller periodicals manage to maintain a degree of credibility by not being dependant on any specific advertiser, or type of advertiser. I had (and still have) some degree of eventual hope for game journalism due to magazines like "Forbes" picking it up, simply because that pediodical is too big to really be shaken down by EA or the like, since it's sustained by tons of other advertising that has nothing to do with gaming, and if something like EA boycotts buying ad space they can pretty much just laugh it off.

A side point I was making in connection to this was a matter of expertise. The differance between a professional game reviewer/critic and just some guy is that the pro is supposed to have a lot of knowlege about gaming, it's history, and the industry. That's what makes him differant from simply asking some random guy on the street and why people might check out a periodical to see what he says rather than listening to their friends or simple word of mouth. There is also a lot of competition for these jobs, Youtube is full of hopefuls that wish they could land a paying gig for some site, talking about games. The guys who DO land those jobs typically have quite a pedigree behind them as far as gaming goes, experience with the industry, and sometimes as much as 20 years or more as an obessive gamer. A lot of these guys are basically living encyclopedias of gaming knowlege. The problem as I see it is when some guy hired for that knowlege doesn't put it to use, and evaluate games in context of well.. the history of gaming. It leads to very average games getting huge scores that inflate the ratings in general, and helps contribute to the increasing mediocrity of the hobby as a whole. I understand the business reasons for why things turn out like this. If a game reviewer generally comes out and says that the newest AAA title is little more than horse wank in the scope of gaming, but entertaining enough when nothing better is around, and does it too often, the guys making those games aren't going to buy more advertising so the writer's boss can pay him. In short the system is broken, and has contributed to a lot of the problems people complain about when it comes to gaming in general.

To be honest when you get down to it I put integrity above the bottom line, to me the arguement that "it is this way, because business demands it" just reinforces my point about the whole system being broken. It's hard to really defend the need for gaming journalists to earn a living, when arguably they aren't doing the job they are supposed to. If a game being released right now isn't as good objectively than one released 10 years beforehand covering the same basic subject matter, that should come up in the review, the point of an expert is to know and convey things like that. I mentioned there being a problem with reviewers handling games "on their own merits", and I stand by that, it's like a movie expert assigning a movie weight as a quality product, or saying it's an entertaining enough popcorn flick that fails to live up to the benchmarks previously set in the genere.

Come for the good reviews and withering critics, stay for the vagina jokes. If that is not a policy for life then I don't want to live on this planet any more.

canadamus_prime was suspended for pointing out the obvious? How does go bugger yourself sound? Perhaps we should have a system where you tell us where we can point out things you will let us say and things you wernt? I usually check what people get banned for(hey it can be funny!) but this one is nuts!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here