[QUOTE="SolidTy"]
[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]
You do understand the idea of whhat he said holds true, reviewers are paid to write professional reviews and try to keep them as unbias as possible. This isn't always the case but its the ideal. I'm sorry but while there are many SW posters who I think have great opinions and write great reviews there is also the majority with crap attitudes and perceptions. At the very least, gaming reviews are not suspose to throw back handed insults to games nor have any platform bias because they are not reviewing simply for their own preference but for the possible preferences of their readers too. Also, being from the OXM or Nintendo Power does not make you bias to a system, that's baseless accusation. It means you review games on certain platforms, you are not to assume anything more about these peoplle than that.
ActicEdge
Adobe's claim is still wrong. You seriously don't need to tell me what reviewers are paid to do, either.
In the end, we know (or should know at least) what the ideal for a reviewer is...but knowing what an ideal is doesn't prove at all what is actually happening 100% of the time. Instead of trying to go back and forth arguing over the myriads of reviews at our fingertips, let's just move past that and back to the quote I found in this thread.
What we do know for sure is that Adobe cannot speak for all reviewers, making a claim for all of them universally that they are all unbiased towards any platform. He doesn't know that, nor can he speak for all of them.
I think there are better posters in this thread to quote, if you ask me.
But the claim is only wrong in the context of believing that reviewers are fanboys, they aren't suspose to be, therefore I think that's the context we should approach it from. And I think its necessary when I'm building a point to flesh it out whether or not you like it, that's my postingsty1e that's something that will just have to be dealt with, sorry.
the idea that it doesn't happen 100% of the time shouldn't mean we jump to the opposite conclusion. I think that its fairly obvious we know some reviewers hold some clear bias but they are also not the one's that are suspose to be taken seriously either. I think the idea that it was implied Adobe meant all the time is silly, we know he didn't.
Also, I quoted you because I expect both a competent response as well as well asa good debate, if I called out every stupid comment I saw in every thread I'd be here 24/7 AND accomplish more nothing than I already do.
This is just unbelievable. I come back to this and see my post blown completely out of proportion. And I'm choosing to respond to this stage of the debate, because Actic hit the nail on the head - to examine the context of the message. SolidTy, you've been tearing at the words of my statement without seeing their context. In other words, please, stop being to *bleeping* literal. of course I can't mean 100% of the time, in every single case, with every reviewer on the planet, at every time of the day. Seriously, who ever means that about any given circumstance??
let me try this again. This issue ois about professional reviewers being biased. I said everybody has a preference. Preference, not bias. I said here time and again there is a world of difference between the two. Preference is just what one person chooses over another, bias is an irrational prejudice, an attitude which compels unfair treatment towards that which the bias targets. It's seen in commentary where one shows consistent patterns in bashing games that are always one one platform. When someone isn't biased, they can give fair and measured opinions of games regardless of which system its on.
But also I need to reiterate, I was comparing reviewers to forumites. You very often see on forums people who's viewpoints are driven by platform specific bias. They hate the PS3, or 360, or Wii, for what ever their own reasons, but the key here, they allow that bias to rule their actions. They will post their negative views on games for no other reason than that game was on the platform they despise. Their negativity is driven by irrationality.
Now SolidTy, I was saying you bent over my words, without seeing the context. And in fct you kept a very narrow view on my words. This is what you repeatedly quoted me on;
"But no, while reviewers can hve their genre preferences, they are NOT biased towards any platform, and will score a game from any system based on its merits."
But what about the sentence which followed that? You narrowing your focus on just one sentence wasn't looking at the context to my meaning. Here it is again, and feel free to look back at my original post;
"They don't deduct or give bonus points because it's a 360 game, or on the Wii or PS3 or whatever."
Do you see what a difference one more sentence makes in context? So I ask you, can you show any cause to claim that a reviewers score for a certain game was driven by which platform it was on? You really think reviewers act in the same manner of forum fanboys who hate based on system? That a journalist would actually score negatively on a game because it was a 360 game, or a PS3 game, or a Wii game? The issue here was reviewer bias, and I was illustrating that there is no cause to show that it occurs in the fashion of the bias you see in forum posters. Because THAT is where you see real bias evidenced by the irrationality of their comments.
--
And as for the whole platform specific magazine reviews, c'mon guys. If it was as biased as some would suggest, we'd see nothing but 9's and 10's. But guess what? bad reviews appear in those magzines too. Believe it or not, not all the reviewers who work at those magazines are die hard fanatics for the product. It's just job to them and they go to the office to do their work and get paid. Like it is for lot o other people in their own daily work lives.
Log in to comment