Added by
Yoda on Sept. 25, 2008
With recent complaints about reviews such as too human and star wars: the force unleashed, i have questioned how a review should be written. This is not only for user reviews, but as well for major game websites. Should a review be written on how much fun the reviewer had, and only count a small amount off for glitches or flaws? Or do glitches and flaws really take away from the experience of a game? There could be an arguement either way. I believe that glitches and flaws shouldn't dramatically drop a score for a game, unless the game is completely broken and nearly unplayable.
However, regaurdless of how a review is written you must understand that most reviews are opinions! So some one isn't a star wars fan? Someone does like dungeon crawlers? They may lower their review score because of this. Also im sure there are system fanboys who write reviews for major gaming websites, but nothing can really be done about this.
All in all, a review, in my opinion, should just be a guideline and shouldn't be taken 100% seriously. If a game scores a 6 but sounds cool to you, then go rent or buy it. If you played the demo for a game and loved it, yet terrible reviews, go buy it!
Out of all the reviewers i would have to say my favorites and most considerate for all audiences would have to be Jeff Gerstmann, and Hilary Goldstein from IGN. Again, this is my opinion on the accuracy from reviews.
So what are your opinion on game reviews? Who are your favorite reviewers?