Nice article, thanks! But the poster sucks! I hope it's meant to be ironic, because I fail to see the "waste" of technology being used for science and medicine. That's what actually improves peoples lives, does gaming can do so to the same extend science and medicine do?

You remind me how much I miss when Games Domain was actually "by gamers, for gamers." I actually quit reading game sites regularly five years ago or more. I have a few friends who are a bit into computer games and I read at the GC2 forums. Nearly all of the game site pages I've read in the past two years have been because of things I've read here, and most of the content has been underwhelming. I suspect that the game reviewer niche really should be occupied by devoted (and suitably skilled) hobbyists and not pseudo-professionals.

Edit re the poster image: I strongly support public investment in and ownership of patents resulting from basic research. I also strongly support subverting the advertising paradigm wherever possible. Puffery (which comprises almost all modern advertising) is immoral, but a good joke is always a good thing.

The irony of the picture is that it came from a post on the Gamespot forums. I just laugh at the picture when I see it. I dThe irony of the picture is that it came from a post on the Gamespot forums. I just laugh at the picture when I see it. I don't mean any of it to affect the article, just to amuse you.

I freely admit that if I could be paid to be a reviewer of games and game media I would do it. Trouble is on a game review site the advertisements are all game based and then you go around again into the catch 22. It seems to me that critics are nothing (not even amateur ones) with out a grain of salt, a background check, and a look at their current investments/income. With that hardly possible in an online forum in the end your only currency as a critic is entertainment, and accountability.

I/E...

If they like reading your stuff and you stick to your actual views (the publicized ones) then you might just be worth the read.

Stay tuned to see if I suck or not.

Good article and I even read it. 

I've dropped Gamespot for a different reason: too much flash on the page.  There's too much noise and it's unpleasant to navigate.

Since the advent of Metacritic and Gamerankings my opinion on reviewers has become more cynical.  I think these sites may actually be causing some sort of new herd behaviour, because the high water mark for 90%+ reviews seems to be creeping higher and higher.

And, possibly this is a genre thing, but to me a lot of those 90%+ games have been pretty forgettable.

The lesson is, as always, play the demo first.

I don't even know where you begin to gather that, somehow, critics care more about criticism in the vein of literary and cinema critics as opposed to "the gamers view." The mere idea that critics are somehow not taping into the vein of the mainstream is just absolutely absurd.

A majority of journalists right now write exactly the kinds of articles you're looking for and that, to me, is a crime. You could be drunk and blind and point at any game review for any game on Metacritic and you'd end up with a review that had the sole purpose of advising the consumer about whether or not a game is a "good buy." This is all well and good, but you end up with dozens upon dozens of reviews for the same game that all serve the same purpose and, generally, provide very little reason to read more than one review ever.

As for the seven-to-nine scale, that's a problem with the rating system on the whole. No single establishment is to blame for it. As a gamer, would you buy a game that scored a 5 across the board even if it's still in a genre you're interested in? Maybe you would, but chances are you see a game at 50% -- which means it's mediocre and may contain some legitimate fun gameplay for people who want it -- you're going to avoid it like the plague.

I know it's not a cool opinion since we're all against the grain here and fighting against the critical man but, if you looked the accumulated reviews for your favorite games, I bet you'd find that reviewers agreed with you. Game reviewers are, on the whole, vastly more in touch with the gaming masses than the kind of critics you'd see in film or literature. Gaming critics can appreciate a fun game of the hardcore independent variety (Castle Crashers, World of Goo, Braid, Darwinia, etc.) just as much as they appreciate the sports games (FIFA 09, Madden NFL 09, and NHL 09 are all very well-received this year) and the AAA blockbuster titles (Grand Theft Auto 4, Fallout 3, Far Cry 2, Fable 2, and, most likely, Gears of War 2).

So, really, I'm not entirely sure what the point of the article is. Yes, everyone loves Penny-Arcade and Zero Punctuation, but they're just providing the thoughts of two individual people who tend to either be in line with reviews or, in the case of games like Assassins Creed, go against the grain in support of the game. And, in the case of a game like Assassins Creed, I think you'll find that the reviewers represent the majority opinion far more accurately than Penny-Arcade did.

HG_Eliminator has known the answer to this for years.                          

But seriously I agree fully, It sucks to have a critic blowing smoke up ur behind to get you to buy a game he got paid to give a good review. Unbiased reviewers are becoming harder to find as time goes on. Theres been a few games ive tried that hit average marks on a 1-10 scale by some reviewers, that should have IMO been in the - points.

I look forward to your next review Seabass. 

The point I was looking to make in this article is that I have a much harder time trusting nearly any professional critic I read these days. This includes all media types that I have a interest in, not just games of course. It is just easier to trust the critic that has the least or nothing to gain due to their review. This isn't a new argument by any means and I have not attacked any one critic in this writing either. I have simply brought up my concerns and frustrations on a very general level. 

I acknowledge that this observation is filled with holes that can been plugged with information and multiple other points of view plastered all over the web. I don't offer my editorial as fact. In the end it is just that, an observation of one person that admits he it not only fallible, but would likely be guilty of the same given the opportunity. However I can't deny that this is the way I feel when read professional critiques. With money being the grease on the wheels, and the fuel that makes it go, you sometimes wonder whom is actually driving. Is it the guy in the driver seat, or the guy at the money pump that gave him directions?

Before I beat that metaphor into a fine pulp I'll stop there.

Thank you for reading and for the encouragement guys!

It's hard to take game site reviews very seriously anymore (well, for a few years, really).  Half the time you go to the site and the entire site is wrapped up in as an advertisement for one of the latest ultra hyped games (and that they've been "previewing" and hyping for months) which just so happens to have a glowing review.  Game sites have become little more than extended advertising for *some* games (the ultra hyped, big budget, payers for big advertising campaigns mostly).

I still visit game sites for (mis)information but I don't take them all that seriously anymore.  They can't really screw up the release date list at least.

www.metacritic.com/games/pc is a good way to get a composite of scores for mainstream PC games, with linkage off to the individual reviews.

I usually hope for a demo to get a feel for a game before I buy, and check out reviews, and try to check out forums for the game to see what players are saying about the game.  I'll also visit the games own site.  Etc.  You kinda need to research a bit these days to wade thru the seas of hype and BS.

The other thing with reviews of anything is that they're subjective and usually highly opinionated.  Assuming the game is technically stable and mostly bug free, the kinds of things any given reviewer cares about or judges may or may not fit how you view games at all.  They may go on about multiplayer when I don't care about it.  They might view sound, voice acting, or intro movies/cutscenes as critical where I consider them nonessential to solid gameplay.  They might like one style of controls or gameplay that's different from what I expect or like.  And certain genres of games (RTS, FPS) tend to be more heavily reviewed and deemed superior to games I prefer, like strategy and old school RPG (not new crap like the fallout 3 abomination).

I used to visit strategy informer for mostly strategy game stuff but even they have evolved into a one stop catch all site like all the other generic biggies.

I think that your tastes are pretty well focused Voqar but I don't fault you for them. They actually give more relevance to the article. FPS for example are some of the biggest money makers out there. I think this must be true because they are one of the few cross over types of games out there. Typically the sport nut (Madden and other sports games) does not play the RTS but will play in many FPS. The same in reverse is that many RPG players will also play in several FPS but wouldn't even look at a console sports title.

There isn't a critic in the world that can please everyone. Mittens is right because the only way to get to truth of it all is to find as many reviewers as you can and average it all up. I don't mean scores because I think they are unreliable as well, just the impression you get from the review. While I like PA and Zero P. I consider them just part of the same big averaged pile when I go looking for more information. I think in this day and age a game demo is a must.