So I was reading my latest issue of Game Informer and already I think I hear some people hissing with disgust, and I read the reviews for both Obsidian's Alpha Protocol and Square-Enix's Nier. Both scored a 6.5 out of 10 and the entertainment value of the review was good. I think I hear more hissing so let me continue.
It's onions, yes, and they get paid for it, yes. Who wouldn't want that job. I would love that job. There is no end to the scathing reviews I would give Final Fantasy 13 and quite a few other games. Now I hear, "Well they get paid for it." they're the soulless, baby-eating evil that's ruining gaming!" Well, what do you want me to do? I'm not made of money and the guys at G.I. are professional (mostly). I can't go out and waste money on every game that hits stores. I wish I could, I can't.
I don't like taking the online reviews much either. Those are typically written by one person and there's something to be said for the confidence a good editor can bring to an article. Believe me I shopped around and I turned down every other magazine in favor of G.I. Electronic Gaming Monthly (EGM) lost my vote when they wrote back to a readers serious letter about co-op not being great for every game with "Just face it [name] you haven't got any friends."
For the most part I agree part-for-part with the scores G.I. give the games. I've only bought one two games that I didn't think were in the ballpark; those were Demigod and Final Fantasy 13.
So all and all they're batting about 900 which is awesome. I just can't stand it when people reading it. It's opinions. They're well-structured and researched and it's better to read than some person who thinks anyone who gets paid to be in video game industries is evil. I'll let them in on a hint: most people like eating too. I'm sure there's corruption in the system; is it any worse than web-rage-man's review of a game because he obviously just hates the company? I think not.
This might sound a bit ranty but I'm leaving it open for discussion. Enjoy.