At some point this integrity thing is kind of bullshit. I mean yeah, obviously if and when developers are paying for or in some way dictating review scores for various favours, that's a problem, but that doesn't seem like it's any more a problem in gaming than any other consumer media sector. But the notion that everything should be impartial and people should be reviewing games like battery hens with no contact or interaction in any way that might colour their views, that's a real weird knee-jerk reaction
If you bought a game you didn't like based on a review that said it was good, that doesn't necessarily mean the reviewer is lying and has an agenda, it means your taste is different. And my god, if you were the kind of person who hates a game like Gone Home, but you bought Gone Home anyway because lots of people said it was good, what the fuck did you expect? You have to go into things with reasonable expectations, and with the coverage available nowadays, nobody has a leg to stand on to suggest they're being duped into bad purchasing decisions.
I think there's a simpler issue here, some people don't like reading about certain things, and the more they find that topic being written about the more strongly they react against it. But here's a thought, if you're not that interested, you can kind of ignore it. Or if you disagree and have a reasonable argument, you can have that conversation with people.
What I want from games journalism/coverage/whatever is to find out about games, how they play, how they're made, how they pertain to culture at large, and maybe a sense of fun and personality about it. I think that's reasonable, and maybe I'm naive, but that kind of seems like the way things are for the most part.
Log in to comment