Home
First, in at least one example, you used another person's subjective experience to figure out whether an opinion about the games you were judging from afar was the correct judgment. But what makes these people qualified to answer the question of whether something is good? And ultimately, didn't someone had to actually play the game? I don't think you can plausibly judge a game with no one ever playing it. It's like judging a book without no one reading it.
Also, I do think you must play the game to give an opinion. Let's say I know nothing about house building, and I pass by a contractor (someone who knows about house building) and a client. I hear them discussing some point about the foundation, and I step forward and proclaim, "That's not how to build a house!" These people would want to know what experience I have with house building, i.e. how much knowledge about the subject. Why should I be as qualified at house building as the contractor granted I have no knowledge about house building? It goes against our typical conception of what it means to know something or what it means to be a worthy expert. As far as I see it, the argument is flawed in these two ways at least. "
Also, <3 Man-God Bettenhausen. Still miss old EGM and old 1up, but still supporting. "
Number 1: Innovation within the journalism industry might be something you're forgetting. With regards to covering everything, some places do cover all industry information, but maybe not review everything (Kotaku, Jostiq). These sources provide for the emergence of (at least the birth of new) business pundits, or some mix of the fields you have presented. I love games and track industry sales and movement for example.
Number 2: You're forgetting about you! Think of a place like Bitmob. This is a very unique place but in a special way. The whole community acts as this new and interesting medium for people like us to discuss matters like this. I'd also suggest that just us being here and discussing this stuff suggests that the video game expert isn't dead but has evolved; we're a new breed of our own, writing personal, critical stories about games, the industry and how they matter or should be improved. Maybe amateur game journalists (if we deserve such a title, which might be too pretentious) are the old video game experts.
Hope that helps."
Reviewers look out for your best interest. When a game gets a 7 out of 10, a reviewer is really saying, "This is average and may not be worth your money." When a game gets a 10 out of 10, a reviewer is really saying, "You should spend your money on this." It's about money mixed with their reaction, less so the negative reaction against the game that you may read. Reviewers don't want their readers to have a bad experience with something.
The same strategy in reverse doesn't work though. There is nothing inherent about a 7 that stops people from having fun. Some reviewers may say "If you play [7/10 rated game] you won't have fun," but I think they are really making a probabilistic claim. "If you play [the same game] you probably won't have fun." That may be the case for some, and the opposite case for others. You mentioned how you felt as though someone had attacked your childhood hero, which tells me you maybe had a personal opinion before playing the game. Besides that though, it sounded as though you took the negative scores as a personal attack against your preferences.
What I would say is understand where reviewers come from. They aren't saying, "You suck," for liking something. They are trying to protect you from an experience you may not enjoy. If you want that experience regardless of their argument, then play it, but don't look at reviewers as misguided, pompous, or fools. They are really out to help."
With that said, I'm wondering what you meant by something... "Commentators will comment on such 'news' and spread that around so much that eventually it will stand as gospel 'truth' (e.g., Gerstmanngate)." Without starting anything big, I was around when Jeff was fired from Gamespot, and it was a huge story. I'm confused about what you mean here from the quote. Are you suggesting that what happened to Jeff was fair, or that the news that was reported was false? I don't plan on causing some immature flame war, but as far as my 2 cents go (which will be all I say about the matter), I think what happened to Jeff was very unfair, and subsequently, I canceled my premium membership with Gamespot when the whole thing went down. Anyway, please clarify the quote. It's slightly confusing when you are talking about opinions on games and move to something like a real life news story."