Review hegemony

Gamers expect very specific review scores for certain games. When Twilight Princess got an 8.6 the internet almost self destructed. Recently, Ratchet and Clank got a 7.5. People are in an uproar over a game they have never played. It’s a triple A title and deserves a triple A score seems to be the prevailing wisdom.

There are a few ways to look at this phenomenon. The first and plainly stupid view is that reviewers are doing their job poorly or are biased. I believe money has changed hands for good reviews but have a tough time swallowing that Microsoft payed for R&C to get a low score. The next and significantly more rational perspective is that the people complaining are actually in the minority. These people are also 14 year old fanboys with a first grade understanding of the English language. →  Sega Ages 2500 Series Vol. 5: Golden Post

The Year in Review Reviewed

When I conceived this site I already knew I wanted it to be not just about games, but about the industry and game media. Actually, those high ideas came after my initial idea of, “If I have a site I’ll get rich, famous, and have 12 wives without becoming a Mormon.” But the thing about the different parts of gaming came soon after. To the cynic, which you should be unless you’re one of those brain-dead optimistic people, an article reviewing other websites material is simply a desperate gesture by a bottom feeder. I assure you that while this is true, I really am dedicated to the idea of reporting on reporting. So look forward to more articles on magazines and other sites (or just read other magazines or sites, they’re far better). →  Reading more, assemble!