I think they have more honesty now, we don't see 9/10 on almost every single game. A gamer can almost always review a game with more honesty than a high paid professional.
Reviews are a joke nowadays. Either the review is absurdly high or the review is far to low. My major problem with reviews and Reviewers is that they are just worthless opinions.
I know that sounds odd and harsh, but back in the day Reviewers use to review a game based off its major components like graphics, gameplay, controls, etc. When a review was done you could see why a game got a certain score and it made sense. Some places like Gametrailers still do this old practice.
Unfortunately, to many Reviewers have moved toward this practice of justifying their scores with a well written argument that explains why they gave the game a low or high score. Now that might sound like a good practice, but being able to write well isn't the same as reviewing a game well.
For instance, I am a decent writer and I can give you a well written review why Borderlands 2, Half Life 2, or Portal 2 is a terrible game. Everything I would say would be factual, but the reality is that I would be wrong. Now if I have to base my review off of 5 or 6 major elements, like gameplay, controls, graphics, etc. there would be a hell of a lot less wiggle room for me to write a review that makes no sense and is absurdly wrong.
Another major problem with reviews is that they are just huge spoilers. Personally, ever since the Gamespot debacle I no longer trust Reviewers. I make up my own mind by renting a game or watching someone play it. People just need to think for themselves, because nowadays reviews are just a joke.
Totally agree. Another thing that should be destroyed are numbers or grading on the whole. A game should be either a buy, rent, or discarded. I fail to see the difference between a 9 and a 9.1 in a comparison between titles.
Reviewers should also be able discern genres for readers if a major company isn't or doesn't want to label the game's MO accurately. This prevents games from having mixed reviews.
A game should be judged on it's playablility and how much it stands out in the genre it's placed in.
130°
130°
80°
80°
Ad 
80°
10°
30°
10°
40°
30°
A gamer can almost always review a game with more honesty than a high paid professional.
I know that sounds odd and harsh, but back in the day Reviewers use to review a game based off its major components like graphics, gameplay, controls, etc. When a review was done you could see why a game got a certain score and it made sense. Some places like Gametrailers still do this old practice.
Unfortunately, to many Reviewers have moved toward this practice of justifying their scores with a well written argument that explains why they gave the game a low or high score. Now that might sound like a good practice, but being able to write well isn't the same as reviewing a game well.
For instance, I am a decent writer and I can give you a well written review why Borderlands 2, Half Life 2, or Portal 2 is a terrible game. Everything I would say would be factual, but the reality is that I would be wrong. Now if I have to base my review off of 5 or 6 major elements, like gameplay, controls, graphics, etc. there would be a hell of a lot less wiggle room for me to write a review that makes no sense and is absurdly wrong.
Another major problem with reviews is that they are just huge spoilers. Personally, ever since the Gamespot debacle I no longer trust Reviewers. I make up my own mind by renting a game or watching someone play it. People just need to think for themselves, because nowadays reviews are just a joke.
Reviewers should also be able discern genres for readers if a major company isn't or doesn't want to label the game's MO accurately. This prevents games from having mixed reviews.
A game should be judged on it's playablility and how much it stands out in the genre it's placed in.