...that the four star rating for halo reach was incredibly predictable? Honestly, ratings on this site can be predicted by the respective reviewer’s level of excitement prior to the game's release. Jeff's general apathy towards the release of the game (and I'm not just talking about that twitter post, you can listen to the bombcast and hear what I’m talking about) was clear evidence that none of the fundamental changes shown off in the beta or referenced in other reviews would make that much of an impact on him, as opposed to other games.
       That brings me to a question I've been considering for a while. By the logic of my thinking above, Drew should have reviewed this game. Clearly Drew has the most experience with the Halo franchise, and would have appreciated the changes the most, and he most likely would have given the game a higher score.

       HOWEVER, is that the best way to review a game? Should a spoken fan of the franchise review the game, because they will understand the gravity of the changes, or should someone who doesn’t care review the game, because they will be more willing to expose the game’s flaws?
 
EDIT: Please focus on the last paragraph of this post, I'm just using the Reach review as a framing device for my question

4 stars. Good game, not perfect. I don't see what the problem is...

post@TheLegendofLuke:  Not the point, man. I'm using that as an example to make a general point about the process of reviewing games. Read the whole post please. There is a reason this is in general discussion 

The point of a review is for the audience to weigh if this game is for them.  If people share Jeff's view on games then they see the four stars and say "This is good."  It shouldn't matter who reviews it as long as they talk about the game in depth so people know what the game is about.

"      But, is that the best way to review a game? Should a spoken fan of the franchise review the game, because they will understand the gravity of the changes, or should someone who doesn’t care review the game, because they will be more willing to expose the game’s flaws?
"

" @marlow83 said:

"      But, is that the best way to review a game? Should a spoken fan of the franchise review the game, because they will understand the gravity of the changes, or should someone who doesn’t care review the game, because they will be more willing to expose the game’s flaws?
"

And every reviewer no matter what they're biases are should talk about the flaws. "

" @SethPhotopoulos said:

" @marlow83 said:

"      But, is that the best way to review a game? Should a spoken fan of the franchise review the game, because they will understand the gravity of the changes, or should someone who doesn’t care review the game, because they will be more willing to expose the game’s flaws?
"

And every reviewer no matter what they're biases are should talk about the flaws. "

That's very true. But, you're talking about a perfect world where critics can objectively describe the game's flaws and their overall impact on the game. I'm saying that most reviewers will either ride the game's flaws off as not serious, or will consider them a more serious detriment to the overall quality. All I'm asking is which is more beneficial to the audience of the reviewer.  "

So your saying give a fanboy their favorite franchise to review so that it gets a perfect score so that other fanboys can say their game is perfect.  Or you could give it to an extreme hater of the game so they give it a low score so all the haters can bash on it with a smile.  Or or or give it to someone in the middle so the they can see the games flaws and strengths.  Thats why I think neither Jeff or Brad should review MK9 when it comes out. 

" 4 stars. Good game, not perfect. I don't see what the problem is... "

" @marlow83 said:

" @SethPhotopoulos said:

" @marlow83 said:

"      But, is that the best way to review a game? Should a spoken fan of the franchise review the game, because they will understand the gravity of the changes, or should someone who doesn’t care review the game, because they will be more willing to expose the game’s flaws?
"

And every reviewer no matter what they're biases are should talk about the flaws. "

That's very true. But, you're talking about a perfect world where critics can objectively describe the game's flaws and their overall impact on the game. I'm saying that most reviewers will either ride the game's flaws off as not serious, or will consider them a more serious detriment to the overall quality. All I'm asking is which is more beneficial to the audience of the reviewer.  "

Reviews should be subjective because what works for some people doesn't work for others.  You have to get people scores who didn't care and people who are fanboys to get a wide assortment of opinions so the person reading the reviews can make an informed decision.   "

No, I think the person who should review Madden is the one who hates videogame sports and real physical sports. The guy who reviews Dragon Age should be the guy who only places rhythm games. And the guy who reviews shooters should be the guy who only plays casual popcap games.
 
Also - of course you can predict the score ahead of time based on the person's attitude leading up to the release. Because chances are they have been doing interviews, watching interviews, pouring through press kits, and playing the actual game since well before the release date.
 
Also, I'm not sure what the point is. Halo Reach got  a four star review. As someone who pre-ordered the game, but isn't a huge Halo person by any means, that tells me "cool, I'll keep my pre-order and am looking forward to this". I don't expect it to blow my fucking mind, but I don't expect it to be a waste of my cash, either. What's the problem here? Is this more of that "IT ONLY GOT A 89 BUT SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN A 91!" stuff?

" @SethPhotopoulos said:

" @marlow83 said:

"      But, is that the best way to review a game? Should a spoken fan of the franchise review the game, because they will understand the gravity of the changes, or should someone who doesn’t care review the game, because they will be more willing to expose the game’s flaws?
"

And every reviewer no matter what they're biases are should talk about the flaws. "

That's very true. But, you're talking about a perfect world where critics can objectively describe the game's flaws and their overall impact on the game. I'm saying that most reviewers will either ride the game's flaws off as not serious, or will consider them a more serious detriment to the overall quality. All I'm asking is which is more beneficial to the audience of the reviewer.  "

" @marlow83: I did read the whole post. It just seemed like you were butthurt because a neutral (the kind of person who should be reviewing the game, IMO) didn't give it a perfect score.   I really don't see the discussion to be had here. "

Honestly i pay more attention to quick looks these days. Rarely even bother with the review i can make my own mind up from a QL most of the time.

Don't you love thread titles that...

It shouldn't really matter who reviews the game, as long as I know enough about their tastes to be able to make up my own conclusion. For example, in this case Jeff reviewed Halo Reach. I know that Jeff is somewhat similarly apathetic towards the release of the game as I am. I enjoy the halo games, but am not a super huge fan of them. Jeff seems to be somewhat similar. So I can take from Jeff's review that I'll feel similarly about the game as he does. If Drew reviewed the game, I know that he is a super huge Halo fan, so I know he'll be more positive about the game than I would be. Reviews are one person's opinions on the game, and it's all about knowing the reviewer and filtering their opinions of the game so they apply to you.