Are game reviewers stupid, or is it me?

Rate this Entry

Sometimes I don't know whether to trust sites like IGN, or 1UP, or Gamespot. I'm sure most people here can relate.

Their scores tend to be very different from how I would score a game. When I'm on Gamespot, I tend to trust the user rating more than the critic score. I have a few theories on why this might be so.

Critics are right, gamers are wrong.
For normal people, eating is a very normal process, maybe almost a chore. But for professional food tasters, it becomes a whole new sensory experience. Food tasters develop their taste buds to the point that they can describe exactly how something tastes. Not just in simple terms like sweet, sour, salty, and bitter, but how it is exactly.

It might be the same for game reviewers. Since they've probably played many more games than the average gamer, they might have refined their tastes in gaming, therefore not liking the same games that the average gamer likes.

Gamers are right, critics are wrong.
Or it might just be that critics are a bunch of lazy asses. That's why they love games like God Of War so much. Because it's easy to pick up, easy to finish, and easy to put away. Since they are getting paid to play a game, they won't get into it as much as a gamer would.

An example of this would be a game like Monster Hunter on PSP. Monster Hunter has no storyline to speak of, and is well-known to be a very hard game. Which is why most people love it. Gaming critics play it, since it's their job to do so, get frustrated by the difficulty level, and decide that it's a lousy game. They complain about things like the lack of a lock-on camera, but fail to see that if a lock-on camera was implemented, it wouldn't nearly be as hard.

What do you guys think?


  1. DeltaBurnt's Avatar
    You're just used to the stupid corrupted game reviewers.

  2. benjaminlibl's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by DeltaBurnt
    You're just used to the stupid corrupted game reviewers.

    OK, cool.
Leave Comment Leave Comment