Too Human has come and, in all truth, gone. Now that it's out and everyone's had the opportunity to play it everything is slowly returning back to normal. The reviews have been written, Dennis Dyack is no longer going crazy on message boards, and all the haters/lovers are just waiting to see the August NPD numbers and figure out just how Too Human did with sales.

It leads me back to thinking about our (that is, video games) culture has developed and how quickly I am reminded that too few have the responsibility to write true game reviews. In today's world, like it or leave it, there are going to be great games you hate and horrible games you love. Unfortunately, to the best of their abilities, critics have to do their best to not allow those biased views to creep into their reviews. I have Too Human, and I love it, but the more I play the more I'm learning that what reviewers are saying is quite true. You look at the various reviews out there and you wonder just how long each reviewer spent with the game (why does it make user reviews tell that but the editor's review doesn't?). This is imperative. I noticed that in G4's 4/5 (which can loosely be anywhere within 8-9/10) admits that they've beaten the game once and went for a second round (which they never confirmed they finished). They also admitted to playing most of if in co-op. I find it hard to believe that they can honestly give a game with just a few too many glitches/bugs such a high score. It pains me to write the review that I'm about to write on Too Human (and I'm prepared to hear negative feedback from fanboys, but then again I feel it's pretentious to assume anyone will ever read my review). I love this game, but I can't allow that to blind me from the flaws that the "traditional" user may experience.

I agree with what the hotspot was also saying about the criticism of one journalist to another. I am a journalist, I have a journalist degree (even though I am currnetly selling out in the world of advertising), and I would NEVER publicly criticize the work of a peer, especially if their work is published. It puts these journalists on the same level as these fanboys that are attacking reviews, it justifies them! In an industry where a snot-nosed 13-year-old with a big mouth and tons of free time can spend 3 hours a day flaming a game they've never played, there needs to be order. How many times have you been on a forum that reads: "Too Human sucks" and you ask them why and they tell you to "f*** off" or call you a "n00b". It offends me, but if I write "boy, I was beating Mario when you were just a sparkle in your mother's eye" or "I pwn n00bs like you all day" (and who really still talks like this in forums, can it people), then I'm no better than they are. If you ask for a reason and get a dumb answer, hopefully you've brought enough attention that people will understand it's not well thought out. Additionally, there comes a time where you just need to throw your hands in the air and admit defeat. Too Human lovers, this is directed at you. You'll never convince the haters, it's a simple marketing rule that a smart man like Dennis Dyack should definitely take to heart: a happy person tells 10 people whereas an unhappy person tells 100 people. With a snowball effect and a 10x head start, there's no way you can overcome this; also, they care more about hating on it than you do about defending it.

In the end, this journalist vs. journalist world needs to stop and if ever a day comes where I can proudly view my name next to a video game web site or publication as "reviewer" or "editor" I will never turn on my own. Video Game Journalists are such a criticized and coveted few people that they need not concern themselves with the other members of their team (no matter if its the same or a rival publication). As for haters and lovers, I recommend the lovers (like with Too Human) get off the forums and back onto their 360s and grind through the ice forest yet again.