Wandrecanada said:
Can it also be possible that you have unrealistic expectations for a review?
Seriously, the standard you seem to be demanding would appear to require one editor leasjed to each game for weeks, months, years(?) at a time. This is not going to be possible anywhere, ever.
That is the realm of the dedicated uber-fans who heroically create and maintain wikis.
That is a different arena than game reviewing. Now more than ever with the pace of game releases on numerous devices, simply getting a solid playthrough alone must be a huge challenge for those people with deadlines.
This seems to be a charge I'm seeing on more and more sites. And the suggestion that ever more stringent demands being unmet result in reviewers being deemed incompetent or worthless. And the goal posts seems to be constantly moving too.
If people don't care for reviews based on a reasonable and consistent set of standards, then why bother with them at all? Or is it only when a person feels a game they like isn't receiving the assessment they wish to see? That does seem to be a common denominator.
Sure, other reasons are given for their displeasure, but isn't that really what's going on? And if it is, why?
If you like something, no matter how many people line up to say otherwise, why should that bother you in the least? This isn't a matter of "somebody calling your baby ugly."
It's OPINION. Opinion with explanation. You can have yours too, but it doesn't make the other opinion wrong. Why does that concept seem so hazy to folks?