From the article:
"Game reviews and ratings have always been a funny thing. At the individual level? Well if you give any one person internet access he/she will instantly spew pretentious as though they're an editor for Pitchfork, with a handy bookmark to Dictionary.com and Microsoft Word open to check for synonyms. When the ability to publish some sort of art, whether it be writing, music, imagery, video, etc., becomes cheap and accessible enough for the masses to get a hold of, you can expect some low quality material. A case of "yeah, it's great they can do it, but they shouldn't."
However, at the professional level, there isn't any source out there that I can say I can trust with one grain of salt any more than the everyday blogger. The review and evaluation process from these sources, which are supposedly reputable, are typically inconsistent from title to title, lacking in a fair review based on full completion of the game, biased towards their advertiser's preference, focused too much on technical individualities such as graphics/sound/online, or 'aided' by large yet completely meaningless scores."
VGChartz's Thomas Froehlicher: "Although Rauniot is shy on its lore and narrative, it still excels at captivating the player with an eerie, haunting world and incredibly tough riddles. It may also only be a few hours long, but those are hours of intense thinking and a deep sense of reward. Rauniot could never be described as user-friendly, but you'll want more anyway if you're thirsty for mysteries."
MSI celebrates the 20th anniversary of Monster Hunter with this unique bundle that features a matching RTX 4060 Ti and game controller.
EA has come under fire for making unexpected changes to its FC 24 Team of the Season unlocks.
The problem is that games are much longer than movies, often 10+ times longer. Film critics can review all major films that are released and still have time left over to watch the art films and spend time with their family. Video games force sites to use dozens of reviewers to compensate for this disparity. And while you may be able to trust a single reviewer, what does that have to do with trusting his numerous colleagues?
Although I do mostly agree with the pathetic numerical systems. Gamespot used to have gameplay as exactly 20% of a game along with graphics, sound, and value also at 20%. And then tilt (which is the actual score the gamespot reviewer wanted) making up the remaining 20%. What if it's an RPG that focuses on story? Wouldn't that make the story at least 50%? As opposed to 0%?
on a side note, I think X-Play has lost its unique view on games, if I ever catch an episode it's more about trying to appeal to the masses rather than just the gamers. Instead of reviews they cover history, local events, up coming events and current trends that relate to technology as opose to just video games. It's like they took CHEAT! Electronic Playground and the FEED and put it in one pot. But that's just me. Whatever happened to Diane Mizota?