Another huge reason for the mistrust is sometimes reviewers have reviewed a game without completing it, or on some infamous occasions WITHOUT EVEN PLAYING IT!hydrolythe said:I think however that the real problem is simply that gamers don't trust reviewers anymore. Reviewers in the past just have damaged the trust of gamers everywhere so damn much that gamers ignore the opinion of the reviewer and think that everything they do is crap.
I guess its due to the following reasons:
1: They have to rely on game publishers to get products. This makes people think that reviewers are bribed to give good scores.
2: They don't play every game (so not doing what they want people to believe they do). How can someone trust them?
3: The internet has given more notoriety to smaller reviewer groups, who work independently and make clear that they choose what they review, thus aspiring confidence to there audience and making them more sceptical towards professional reviewers
But I guess this episode just shows how far that hatred has gone.
See, there's no way to really verify that a reviewer really played a game, not like a film reviewer seeing a movie (people obviously saw them at the screening). Some game reviewers even proudly state they DIDN'T finish a game (this almost never happens for film reviewers). Plus reviewers are usually so strapped for time that they end up rushing through just the main plot in a game that has perhaps dozens of hours of optional content or multiplayer content that reviewers don't play. Reviewers usually play on the lower difficulties too, which is rarely what most hardcore gamers are going to use. The way reviewers play through games is pretty much the worst possible way of getting enjoyment out of a game, so how can you trust them to ever properly represent the entire experience in their review?