Hello to anyone

(if anyone) that is actually reading this. Thank you for reading it.

WARNING!!! The contents of said Blog Post DO NOT contain any information that could in ANY WAY be useful . . . . . to anyone.

Anyways, I really wanted to comment on Patrick's article/email conversation with Manveer concerning the state of game reviews, review scores and criticism of games. After wrting this whole thing I realized that it can be all summarized by saying that "I believe Developers/Publishers need to stop blaming critics for bad reviews. Also, above all else, Reviewers must be open and honest about the game that they review and the process that they use in order to review it." At least, they have to maintain their honesty if they intend to keep thier subscribers.

So anyways, if you want to kill some time please read the poorly formulated thought diarea below.

I think the main thing(s) that I wanted to say is that publishers/developers have to own up to and be honest about the fact that the reason why they dislike game reviews is because poor game reviews result in games that do not sell well, and therefore a loss of profits for the publisher/developer. That is the reason, plain and simple. All this talk and dancing around that issue is just insincere rhetoric and/or propaganda. Developers do not like it when their livelihood is

threatened by poor reviews of their product. I do not fault them for wanting to at least try to figure out some way to coax reviewers into giving their

particular product good press. The fact is however that bad games receive bad reviews and good games receive good reviews. (generally speaking that is) If

your game stinks then the reviews of your game will most likely reflect that. I would go as far to say that Developers know that their game is bad WAY in

advance of the game's actual release, and either cannot improve upon it for some reason or choose not to. The same thing can be said for individual pieces

of any game. There are a lot of really good games that still have that one thing about them that is poorly executed.

My point with all this nonsense is that developers should stop blaming reviewers/critics for their game not selling well. It is not the reviewers' fault that your game is not well received. (that is, if in fact a game did not sell well) I do not know of any games that were so incredibly good, to the point of being a religious experience, that ended up not selling well. Ultimately consumers dictate what they want. What do they want? They want games that are fun and engaging. Which leads me to a beef that I had with something that Manveer wrote.

Manveer wrote that (I am paraphrasing here) consumers don't even know what they want. That statement sort of got under my skin. Maybe it is just the way he wrote it. Maybe what he meant to write was something like, "Most consumers do not understand what is possible to accomplish in a game given the hardware/software that developers are forced to work with. They do not understand that when we simply inerate on a sequel to a game that we are therefore sacraficing innovation on a new and different game feature." I don't think that is what he intended though. So, if I take his statement at face value it seems to imply that all gamers are just mindless drones that lap up whatever developers put in front of them. Sort of making the point, "If we just TELL consumers what

to like they will like it." That kind of mentality just rubs me wrong man. He also went on to wrote something like consumers are not forward thinkers and

that they are not considering ways games can innovate, or something. That is just plain wrong. I can only speak for myself and those that I discuss games

with, but I have never come across anyone that plays games that does not have some kind of idea as to how games or a particular game can be improved upon.

There is no way that anyone can know that I am telling the truth about this, but I can honestly say that I predicted certain industry trends that are just

now today coming into existence. I predicted these recent "game innovations" like 10 years ago, as I am certain that a number of other consumers have as

well. I'm not saying that I am some kind of genius or anything. I am sure that millions of people came to the same conclusions that I did 10 years ago as

well. I am just saying that consumers are not merely thoughtless piles of money to be harvested. Any number of gamers probably have countless ideas about games in general.

I think Game Review Sites have to at least acknowledge the tremendous power they have over the market, and exercise caution in the use of that power. The internet is glorious and abhorrent all at once. This idiotic blog post is evidence of this. I mean, the fact that I can write this post and share it with anyone who wants to waste their time reading it is amazing and terrible at the same time. (By the way - My apologies to anyone who is reading this.) Game reviewers (I think) know that their reviews ultimately promote or dissuade at least some portion of sales. I believe that a reviewer takes the necessary time to prove their point if they conclude that a game is "bad". I think most reviews go on at length about a games faults more often than they do about a games good points simply because the reviewer is pressured to prove their opinion/statement about a game being "bad" rather than when their opinion of a game is favorable. But anyways, point being that any one review does not make or break any game. Consumers frequent game reviews because games are freakin' expensive and also because there is no way that most consumers can actually play a game to make their own determination about it without actually purchasing it in the first place.

If developers (in general) are genuinely upset with the way that their games are being represented by game critics then they should all make a concerted effort to

release Demos of their games to the public before releasing their games at retail so people can make up their own minds, rather than relying on review sites. We, as consuymers, know that this is not the case based upon our observations. We all know that if a review of a game comes out BEFORE the games retail release then it is most likely a good game, or at least a game that the developers believe is good. If a game's review is not published before its release then we can most likely assume that the developer in question did not send a completed copy of a game to reviewers purposefully because they believe that the reviewer will give the game a poor review, because they have been developing the game for years and they know that it is not good.