The reviews themselves hold the answers to your questions. For instance, if you read the Duke Nukem Forever review, you will discover that not only is there more platforming than shooting, but that the platforming isn't good, or fun. In Metal Gear Solid 4, there is text that goes into great detail about how the story come together to form an incredible melding of narrative and gameplay. This is why we write all those words. They hold the answer to every single question you asked. We further explore those kinds of questions in our podcast, and in countless features in which our editors go into great detail about these subjects. We are up front and transparent in all these respects. I invite you to read reviews of these games, and to read and watch associated features.
Case by case, we evaluate games based on how well they do what they do--and whether what they do is, in and of itself, worthwhile. Games are not collections of features; they are entire experiences in which one particular aspect in one game might work well, while the same in another game may not. This is how game criticism works. We approach each game as its own experience, an experience that is informed by the games we have played before. And we then communicate to you what that experience was like, and what individual elements stood out to us as positive, and which ones detracted and distracted. At that point, it is up to you, the consumer, to take in that information and evaluation, and decide how relevant it is to you.
I invite you take this moment to consider your own thoughts on particular games. Do they always match up with your friends? If not, do you believe your friends are "biased?"
In addition, I invite you to consider that word: "biased." Do you truly understand what you are accusing someone of when you use the term? Or is it your way of discrediting someone with who you simply disagree?
Our jobs isn't to hold a mirror to you and parrot your own ideas and opinions. It is impossible, because each individual has his or her own ideas on the games he plays. What we can do is to evaluate games thoroughly, and then communicate to you in our reviews the sum of that experience. We will inform you of features, dissect them, evaluate them, and express what did and didn't work for us, and why. Some formulas stay fresher for longer, while others grow stale quickly. Some types of games can be reinvigorated by small elements, while others cannot. Each game is different. Again, your answers lie in the reviews themselves. Sometimes, we may say something with which you don't agree. And for that I am glad, for if we did always agree with "Internet person #34,112," we would not be critics: we would be talking heads, just parroting back what you wanted to hear, rather than expressing our own sincere thoughts. And if we agree with person #34,112, there's a good chance that person #900,567 might not agree. This is what I like to call "life." And in "life," people may not always hold the same opinions, yet in most cases, people don't tell others that they need to "get their act together."
Accusing critics of bias is a common tool used to discredit--so common it has no meaning. I can promise, however, that every GameSpot reviewer approaches each game with cautious optimism; we always have, and we always will. It is a promise I can always make, and I will always keep.
Kevin-V
First of all most of the time i like to watch the reviews, and i stated that i haven't played every game but Metal Gear Solid 4 shouldn't get getting a 10 (not saying it should get a bad score like Duke Nukem did) but 'the bad' should say about the game having more movie length cutscenes than gameplay, and i can't really compare my friends to critics because they don't give a score and the list of the good and the bad things about a game.
Log in to comment