Among the many problems it is assumed that I have, not the least of which so far have been incompetence and a complete lack of integrity, I think my most serious is that I just don't share the cynical view that everyone's in on screwing readers/listeners over.
But surely it should be clear that there are enough of you guys who through either a combination of inexperience and lack of historical gaming perspective or something more sinister and calculated, are willing to offer unlimited adulation to unremarkable blockbusters.
And also, it ought to stick in your craw that those criticising the gaming media as a whole for being shills do have a leg to stand on. If you're trying to establish yourself as credible, or if you have any principles, you sohuld be trying to distnace yourselves from these fuckwits who are making you look bad by association. I understand it's very difficult to turn on your own peers without looking bitter, jaded, jealous, etc rather than concerned for the wellbeing of the industry's credibility, but for everyone trying to stick that sort of shit to writers like Dan Hsu, there are plenty coming back with "Amen, hallelujah brother!"
Every time someone from you industry comes out and says - here's the skinny, we've been on the take - there seems to be a prevailing attitude that he's part of some isolated incident and nobody else is doing it. Now, if some of you had the balls to come out and say - yep, we've gotten press kits that give us selling points to emphasise in our reviews, we've had advertisers threaten to pull funding, we've been given gratuities, etc. but we told those fuckers to take their advertising money elsewhere, then that puts you back on our side.
The fact that these things are treated as isolated incidents that they clearly aren't makes us more inclined to lump you all in with the shills. And if your silence is out of fear or deference toward your advertisers, then you're
this close to being a shill. You're not lying, but you're withholding ugly truths, which is nearly as bad.
What doesn't work is pretending it just doesn't happen.
I've seen far more and far worse bias come from the "average Joe" than most paid reviewers, I'd even suggest it as common practice,
That's probably true, but it's also easier to weed out. If some guy rants about how he "hates this stupid game because his character runs too slowly" or something similarly trivial, it's usually a dead giveaway that the guy doesn't have his critical head screwed on. Likewise, the guy who spouts off that he "loves this game because it's the next Final Fantasy and there hasn't been a bad one yet" is dubious.
But bear in mind that none of these people are posing as professionals, and their passionate bias can still be reasonably interpreted as negative and positive views of the game, as long as you disregard the degree. That's still more informative than when the whole world of gaming journalists collectively proclaimed the Neverwinter Nights single-player campaign as an epic storyline rivalling or even exceeding Baldur's Gate II.
For the same reasons, I'd be more inclined to label the 68% average user rating of Doom 3 as more accurately informed than the staggering 87% average from "professionals". You can argue that user reviews are likely to be influenced by the progress of time and retrospect, but surely that's another reason to hold them in higher regard than a rushed critique riding the wave of hype.
and on the other side I've seen the process "professionals" put themselves through in offering their critiques. Aside from the fact-checking and professional editing, the ones I know take great pains to give a fair and accurate assesment of the product they are reviewing, because, as it turns out, they are gamers just like you.
And again we come back to the conflict of interest. Even if you disregard that completely, there's a clear demarkation here. Those who pay hard-earned money for the privilege of spending their leisure time gaming, and those who are paid play "free" games. And hell, I'll read, play or watch just about anything that's free. I apply higher standards for something I've had to work for.
If anything, the too often knee-jerk assumption that a difference of opinion on a review must mean that said reviewer is "on the take" only strengthens my resolve that the reviewers are the reliable ones.
Would it not be a knee-jerk assumption that criticism of the gaming media stems from "different of opinion"? It's when you fuckers begin to sound like pod people expressing views that
not a single fucking gamer holds that leads to cruel accusations. Same goes for the glaring flaws that
every paying gamer can see from the get go, and yet none of the professionals seem to notice. It sets off alarm bells.
I couldn't really give a fuck that someone enjoys a game like Oblivion, which I happen to think is a piece of shit. Good for them. But I resent the presentation of opinion and misinformation as fact, so don't tell me that grinding your way along a clumsy linear storyline is a journey equal to the Fellowship of the Ring, and expect to maintain any credibility as someone who can evaluate relative merits.
