There's been a huge uproar about a reviewer at EGM giving Aliens:Colonial Marines a 9/10 when the game has largely been panned by almost everyone. The defense for this person, offered by a few, is that the review is his personal opinion and he's entitled to it. I don't think that's true, and using that defense, whether you like the game or not, demeans the entire gaming journalism industry.
Opinions, you see, are inherently worthless. My opinion is worthless, your opinion is worthless, everybody's is. If you purchased and enjoyed Aliens....great. I won't spend a second arguing with you. If you hated it...I'm sorry, but same thing. You are entitled to your opinion and shouldn't have to defend it, largely because your opinion and mine don't have much of an effect on the world.
Journalism is different. A journalist in any area, gaming, sports or politics is supposed to be an expert in their field. Their viewpoint has a lot of weight. That weight only increases when they or the organization they report for is well known. Just think about the difference between "A NASA scientist believes that a meteor will strike the Earth in the next ten years" and "Jim down the street says we're all doomed."
The scientist's belief will be listened to by many more people because they are supposedly an expert. We assume they've done the necessary work to make that statement and have facts to back them up. Even if we don't trust the scientist, we trust the name of NASA and believe they have hired trustworthy employees.
The same should be true of EGM. When a journalist representing them reviews something, that review should be more than an opinion. It should be that person's attempt, focusing on the facts and using their presumably high level of expertise in that field, to explain why most of the people interested in that kind of game will or will not want to spend time and money on it. That's why we read watch reviews and support the publications that print them. We don't really want to know what the REVIEWER thinks, we want to know what will WE will probably think if we plunk down the cash.
As a reviewer, you have to go beyond your personal opinion. It doesn't really matter whether THEY liked it or not(We all have our guilty pleasures. I love Final Fantasy VIII). A good reviewer thinks "will most people like this game" and comes up with reasons why or why not.. It's THEIR job no have a good guess how others will receive the product.
That is not an easy job. That's hard! That' why most people aren't professional reviewers even though we all have opinions. I've seen many movies, but I'm no MovieBob. I ONLY know whether I like or hate a movie. I really have no idea what anyone else thinks. That's why I don't have a video series on the escapist and he does.
The point is, when you give a game a 90 out of 100 when the next best score is a 68 and the average user rating is much lower, you have failed as a reviewer. You have failed to understand what the "average" consumer will think. It doesn't matter whether you honestly liked the game or not. You have failed at your job. Sitting back and saying "Well, that was my opinion" is an insult to everyone who feels cheated out of $60.
Think I'm wrong? How long until the box of Aliens: Colonial Marines has "EGM GAVE IT A 9/10" in big bold letters on it? And how many people who don't spend much of their free time on gaming sites, will give Gearbox their money because of that review? They aren't doing that because of an opinion, but because they trust the JOURNALISM of EGM.
And its that trust that has been abused.
Opinions, you see, are inherently worthless. My opinion is worthless, your opinion is worthless, everybody's is. If you purchased and enjoyed Aliens....great. I won't spend a second arguing with you. If you hated it...I'm sorry, but same thing. You are entitled to your opinion and shouldn't have to defend it, largely because your opinion and mine don't have much of an effect on the world.
Journalism is different. A journalist in any area, gaming, sports or politics is supposed to be an expert in their field. Their viewpoint has a lot of weight. That weight only increases when they or the organization they report for is well known. Just think about the difference between "A NASA scientist believes that a meteor will strike the Earth in the next ten years" and "Jim down the street says we're all doomed."
The scientist's belief will be listened to by many more people because they are supposedly an expert. We assume they've done the necessary work to make that statement and have facts to back them up. Even if we don't trust the scientist, we trust the name of NASA and believe they have hired trustworthy employees.
The same should be true of EGM. When a journalist representing them reviews something, that review should be more than an opinion. It should be that person's attempt, focusing on the facts and using their presumably high level of expertise in that field, to explain why most of the people interested in that kind of game will or will not want to spend time and money on it. That's why we read watch reviews and support the publications that print them. We don't really want to know what the REVIEWER thinks, we want to know what will WE will probably think if we plunk down the cash.
As a reviewer, you have to go beyond your personal opinion. It doesn't really matter whether THEY liked it or not(We all have our guilty pleasures. I love Final Fantasy VIII). A good reviewer thinks "will most people like this game" and comes up with reasons why or why not.. It's THEIR job no have a good guess how others will receive the product.
That is not an easy job. That's hard! That' why most people aren't professional reviewers even though we all have opinions. I've seen many movies, but I'm no MovieBob. I ONLY know whether I like or hate a movie. I really have no idea what anyone else thinks. That's why I don't have a video series on the escapist and he does.
The point is, when you give a game a 90 out of 100 when the next best score is a 68 and the average user rating is much lower, you have failed as a reviewer. You have failed to understand what the "average" consumer will think. It doesn't matter whether you honestly liked the game or not. You have failed at your job. Sitting back and saying "Well, that was my opinion" is an insult to everyone who feels cheated out of $60.
Think I'm wrong? How long until the box of Aliens: Colonial Marines has "EGM GAVE IT A 9/10" in big bold letters on it? And how many people who don't spend much of their free time on gaming sites, will give Gearbox their money because of that review? They aren't doing that because of an opinion, but because they trust the JOURNALISM of EGM.
And its that trust that has been abused.
