CrazyCapnMorgan said:
Forgive me for being rather cynical, but I lost all sense of seriousness in this letter when I read the phrase "honest press outlets". Seriously? There is no honest press anymore. Money is allowed to influence everything in this culture. The proof? If the game sucks so much, then for what reason(s) are The Escapist still allowing the ADVERTISEMENTS for the game you just heavily criticized to be displayed? I'll be damned if the top answer isn't money.
I'm a little confused... are you saying that you think that the Escapist was influenced by advertising dollars to write a
negative review? Because I'm pretty sure that a game company attempting to buy a review from a site like this would not be looking for a negative one. And I'm also not sure why The Escapist should not accept ad revenue from a company for a game that the reviewer did not like; they're still a gaming site, and this is a pretty big release that many people in their key demographic would be interested in. If anything, I would see this as an indication that they are
not being paid for their opinion, and that the system, at least in this instance, is working. Or am I reading you incorrectly?
The relationship between an art/entertainment form and its reviewers is always rocky (and I should know... I'm an actor *grins*), and it's very easy for one side to attack the other for behaving unfairly. My advice is twofold: 1) always,
always remember that every review you read is based on opinion, which itself is based on varying levels of expertise, and 2) if you're going to pay attention to reviews, and use them to base your initial perceptions of a game, then it is your responsibility to find reviewers whose opinions you trust. If you don't believe that Russ is a reliable source of information about a game, or if you simply don't think that his taste in games and yours are compatible, then you don't have to give his reviews any credence. You can simply read them and let them roll off your back.
The problem with Mr. Redner's comments as I see it was not that he was wrong; there are certainly reviewers who abuse their positions with vitriol, as there have been throughout history and as there will be for the foreseeable future. But it is still a very subjective thing to say that
this person's review was a balanced negative review while this
other person's review was an unprovoked attack. Was Mr. Redner so objective that he could honestly make that call? And would it justify him making the decision to stop providing advanced copies to a particular reviewer? I don't think so. And that's not his call to make. Readers of reviews are (or should be) smart enough to assess whether they think a reviewer is providing an honest opinion or just hating for hatred's sake. It's up to them to decide which is which.
Bottom line is, a person is never going to agree with any reviewer, even a trusted one, 100% of the time. But that doesn't give anyone the right to stop that reviewer from writing. Because, as people have said here multiple times, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
