Jeff from Holygrenade writes: "The last month, games reporting has been in the crosshairs of many. (I’m guilty of this too; read the backlog of Holygrenade to find several posts on “Doritosgate”.) Strangely, while the reporting process is under careful watch, games reviewing remains unchecked."
"For some reason, writing a video game review is dangerous. It leads to the fractured, nonsensical bumbling of Internet commenters, attacking someone personally for sharing an opinion. An opinion those commenters actively sought out to consider purchasing an unreleased game."
Perhaps it's because some reviews are blatantly biased, or taste-based, with too much subjective nonsense, where what people need is some OBJECTIVITY. If you can't write objectively then no one gives two shits about your opinion. If it's your opinion that you think all military shooters suck, and that the market is over saturated, and so you grade every military shooter to come out a 4/10, what help does that do to anyone who may actually be interested in military shooters? Ranting should take no place in a review - it should be like CNN - this bashing of certain games because you're a jerkoff like someone on Fox News giving their stupid, ignorant opinion needs to stop. No one cares about your personal taste - they want to know if something is of high quality. This isn't rocket science.
The scoring system in reviews needs to be revised, All it seems to serve nowadays is a way to generate hits.
Giving a game like halo 4 a score of 9/10 or 5/10 is irrelevant. People are going to burr up no matter what the score.
Seriously, they're just numbers people.
What matters is a decent, unbiased, non opinionated article.