Originally posted by dsheinem@Mon, 2005-03-07 @ 08:08 PM
BTW, why does this game get a bum rap (low-rated on several sites)? It is a decent shooter...not the best ever, but not bad.
[post=131044]Quoted post[/post]
Good question. It really depends on the kind of reviewer. Allow me to expound...
<--------expounding--------->
People don't know what they are talking about:
Ever notice how many reviews of a particular game don't seem to differ that much? I do. In many cases you will read several reviews for a game, and the points highlighted by each reviewer tends to be the same. Co-incidence? Maybe. But perhaps the more immediate answer is that the reviewer hasn't really been accustomed to the game (and what it offers), and instead writes a response that is, how should I say it,
more open to interpretation. In other words, the reviewer hasn't got the slightest clue of what he is talking about, and is rattling off line after line of garbage!
But why would he/ she do such an awful thing? Not only is the reviewer misleading the reader, but he/ she is also demoralizing the game, and disgracing the essence of journalism. Well, first of all, money talks. In many cases the reviewer is offered a more than generous amount of cash to write a well-received,
propagandistic review. Secondly, the reviewer wishes to sympathize with the readers, so the reviewer writes exactly what the readers (or community as a whole) wants to hear. Yes, the fact that reviewers sometimes know more about how to shape and control public opinion than the actual source that they are reviewing is scary. It's a sad and sorry truth of journalism.
People think they know what they are talking about:
Past all the empty reviewers from the people who don't know what they are talking about, are reviews with a little more substance; a little more vitality. In order not to sound too biased, the reviewer needs to throw in the good
with the bad - it's as simple as that. Though for many of these reviewers, writing something that goes against the tides of consensus, just doesn't flow naturally. What you end up reading is the garbage of the 'people who don't know what they are talking about' mixed in together with a whole lot of random, irrelevent, and
unjustifiable quarrels.
People know what they are talking about:
If your lucky, you may be able to read a review and walk away convinced that the reviewer truly knew his stuff. He/ she left no stone unturned and backed up each quarrel he/ she found alone the way, with
reason. These reviews are that of 'people who know what they are talking about', and are not biased, discriminative, or any other no-no's you can think of when it comes to writing a fully-fledged review.
<--------end expounding-------->
Now, if you can place the reviews you read into one of those three categories of reviewers I listed, then you should have everything sussed.
