Reviewers, do they need to justify their review?

[NecroWolf]

I could make a blog out of this, but I think it'd be too short to justify it. I think it is absolutely stupid that reviewers have to justify their reviews sometimes, like the review for Uncharted 3 from Eurogamer, or the review for Skyward Sword (Which I don't own a Wii, let alone a Zelda game). Why? Why should the reviewer have to justify themselves? Do you think a reviewer has to justify their review, especially to gamers who have clearly already bought the game? Do you think people need a review to make them feel better about the game they've already bought?

Too many times I've read about angry gamers who lash out against review sites for not 'agreeing' with them or their opinion. I'm under the impression that reviews are there to tell you whether the game sucks or not before you purchase, but it seems some members of the gaming crowd use reviews to ensure that this game they bought is awesome... it is like they need others to agree with them. I don't mind disagreeing with a review, or other gamers, I do it all the time. What I do mind is angry letters written to the reviewer in question, to the point where they need to make another article to justify their review. Thoughts?

 

[Daddio]

Only if they work for IGN.

 

[intoTheRain]

i think people get more upset when it seems like people honestly just didn't even play the game...

like i personally feel i could get far more in depth than any Skyrim review I've ever read. half the time i feel like the person hasn't even played the game.

there are retarded fan boys out there that will cry and complain about everything despite how logical it may be if their favorite game doesn't get a 10, or A+, 5 Stars, or whatever.

but i think the majority, like me, just want reviews to actually give an accurate description of the game. deduct points for legit reasons, and add points for legit reasons.

don't visit IGN if you think that is an accurate representation of your average gamer.

the Game Revolution Skyrim review was a poor excuse for a review. but it was well written and fun. I trust, and have always trusted GR's verdicts, and often purchase games on their opinion alone. so the final verdict, despite being told next to nothing in the actual review, was enough to get me to go out and purchase the game with confidence. so while this review being terrible didn't bother me, it still could have been much better maybe have that, and at the bottom an attachment to the real review.

usually GR properly touches on every necessary aspect, and in depth, while keeping the review short and sweet. and then they tend to slap a consensus and rating on the game that makes logical sense to me, and for the review they gave it.

whereas IGN reviewers can ramble on for 3-4 pages, and tell me nothing. then give a game i feel deserves a 9.5 a 7, or a game i feel deserves a 6 a 9.0, and the review gives me next to no explanation as to why it even ended up with that score.

that's why i get angry at certain game scores. think im done now.

 

[Longo_2_guns]

I agree pretty much exactly with what intoTheRain said.

Really though, there are two reasons why a greater justification of a review is required. First and formost, and this is something that's VERY important, a review should always look at the objective qualities of the game, not the subjective. Not everyone experiences the same joy out of certain games, but everyone can see the flaws that are objectively in the game.

And there's a lot more corruption as far as reviews and stuff go, unfortunately.

 

[Chris_Crime]

I hate random reviewers reviewing random products.

For instance, if Reviewer A's favorite or specialty is RPGs, I want them delegated to reviewing primarily RPGs. I don't care what he thinks of WWE '12, and why should I?
Reviewer B is a sports fan? THEN GUESS WUT. Review sports games... not action adventure titles.

Though I'm giving gaming examples, this goes for all products. I don't walk into Best Buy and ask the tv guys about the refrigerators.
Maybe a Review History tab is in order.

Something else I like is when I get to know the reviewers a little bit, by editorials or what have you (if online of course). If I can get a little back-info into the reviewer themselves, it'll go a long way into me trusting their scoring habits.

 

[NecroWolf]

I agree pretty much exactly with what intoTheRain said.

Really though, there are two reasons why a greater justification of a review is required. First and formost, and this is something that's VERY important, a review should always look at the objective qualities of the game, not the subjective. Not everyone experiences the same joy out of certain games, but everyone can see the flaws that are objectively in the game.

And there's a lot more corruption as far as reviews and stuff go, unfortunately.

This. This is a good example of what I want out of reviews as well. See, I love certain games, and I'm biased toward them. Every reviewer is, it's just a fact of life. You cannot get an unbiased review, it almost isn't possible unless a review site hates everything. I float between here and Destructoid, because I can get as close to decent reviews as possible, less so on Destructoid but still decent.

That being said, what I want to know is if people should post justification for a review after the games release, because fans were not happy that it got this review or that review. Does it matter? Do any of you go online and see if someone posts a positive review of a game you love, feeling you need to feel better about your purchase? Ever get angry when someone says something you don't like about a game you love? Why? Does it matter what some random person on the internet thinks of your game? I'm not being sarcastic, be truthful, I want to know. 8)

 

[LinksOcarina]

Read my reviews at blistered thumbs. That is the only justification I need to make really. If they disagree, they disagree. In the end I go in as unbiased as possible. People will believe what they will but in the end the art of reviewing is never an exact science, and things do change over time in terms of what is high quality and what would be a good game to play.

 

[TheJx4]

If you crack jokes about Call of Duty, which tends have a generally short campaign, and then complain about long levels all in the same review, there is a problem.