I don't think I care enough to defend him (more than what I write in this post), but I think people miss the point of his work. He attempts to frame reviews in a way that makes them meaningful to people that already know everything about a game before it comes. The problem with reviews, for people that are consumed by gaming press, is that reviews do nothing. They vindicate our own views. Which to me means they are essentially useless. They don't present any new information. Even if a writer we like reviews something we're curious about it tends to reinforce our initial impressions (of course there will be exceptions from time to time).
Tim Rogers frames his reviews to give you a glimpse of where his perception of the game is coming from. Since reviews are subjective, the only way to give them meaning or purpose, to those of us in the zeitgeist of gaming news is to present us with a unique lens. So naturally a lot of time will need to be spent framing his point of view and where he's coming from, internally, before his reviews can begin.
With that said, once he's done that he tends to make comparisons to what he likes and dislikes about the game in relation to world experiences. This helps articulate his points in a more general sense, one that we can compare to games that we've already played in relation to our own world experiences that match what he's written.
I think if he was a more normal person, his method of writing would be less offensive to some people. I can totally understand not liking his style, but the general hate sort of confuses me. A thousand people write about games, why get made about him specifically? Stick to Giant Bomb, problem solved.
Log in to comment