I would say it's been some time since I listened to the collective voice of an institution as a guide. So often sites or magazines are referenced in the way of "IGN says it's awesome" or "Gamespot gave it a 5.5!"
It's easy to say as a sort of shorthand, if you're relaying information to somebody who doesn't know of, or give a damn who somebody like Brad Shoemaker is. But is it not uninformed, outdated a notion, or dare I say juvenile to put your trust in an anonymous institution? You need look no further than the cesspool of gamers that is GameFAQs message boards (or many message boards for that matter) to see that most gamers really DON'T know or seem to care who writes for game sites.
Idiots like to talk about "objective, unbiased reviews". Hey, sorry, no such thing. Let's suppose Hitler is writing a review for a new Seinfeld game for IGN: shocker, he hates it. People who never taking into account the person writing the review might actually just say "Oh well, I trust IGN they're the most popular site for games, rah rah rah, new Seinfeld game must be garbage."
Is it the failure of gamers to inform themselves of a writer's slant that results in blind praise or rage towards a game/site that litters message boards/comment threads, or can we just assume that most people are inherently obtuse to the notion that reviews are written by humans?
So whose work do you read and enjoy? Kupek, you can be exempt from answering this one if you like.
One of my favorite journalists/bloggers is Leigh Alexander of Sexy Videogameland (her awesome blog), Variety, and Kotaku.
It's easy to say as a sort of shorthand, if you're relaying information to somebody who doesn't know of, or give a damn who somebody like Brad Shoemaker is. But is it not uninformed, outdated a notion, or dare I say juvenile to put your trust in an anonymous institution? You need look no further than the cesspool of gamers that is GameFAQs message boards (or many message boards for that matter) to see that most gamers really DON'T know or seem to care who writes for game sites.
Idiots like to talk about "objective, unbiased reviews". Hey, sorry, no such thing. Let's suppose Hitler is writing a review for a new Seinfeld game for IGN: shocker, he hates it. People who never taking into account the person writing the review might actually just say "Oh well, I trust IGN they're the most popular site for games, rah rah rah, new Seinfeld game must be garbage."
Is it the failure of gamers to inform themselves of a writer's slant that results in blind praise or rage towards a game/site that litters message boards/comment threads, or can we just assume that most people are inherently obtuse to the notion that reviews are written by humans?
So whose work do you read and enjoy? Kupek, you can be exempt from answering this one if you like.
One of my favorite journalists/bloggers is Leigh Alexander of Sexy Videogameland (her awesome blog), Variety, and Kotaku.
