The April Fool's joke about "Metametacritic" brings up a good question: Should game critics be evaluated on their performance?
As of right now, there are no monopolies in the games industry, and for the sake of the medium as a whole, they never should either.
And yet the biggest tech companies in America are essentially that. They buy up all the small comps only to kill them off and steal what they have, and if they can't buy em they bleed them to death.
GL compiles a list of some of the most mind-blowing video game narrative twists in recent memory, from The Last of Us to Outer Wilds
With articles like these cant you tag the games mentioned so that we can know ahead of time if there’s a spoiler to avoid?
Not clicking on your article otherwise.
Discover our top video game adaptations of popular board games, from Bloodbowl to Wingspan & get your board game friends into video games!
Can gamers have an opinion of a reviewer's review, critique and writing skill? I was told that you aren't even allowed to have an opinion on the ME3 ending situation (Told by journalists and critics to shut up and take the game how it is. Oh and to not get a refund on the game) so idk. It'd be interesting seeing how it would work though.
How could you actually review a reviewer? How could you grade their performance?
AN authors writing style, be it in a book or a review, is a very subjective thing. For example I like lenghty reviews that break down almost every element of the game into separate pieces, while other people prefer their reviews short and sweet, always sticking to the major points.
Reviews are already a subjective thing because while one person might like a game the next person may not. Adding reviews of reviewers into that mix would be just daft, in my opinion.
Now, a simple site where people can vote for their favorites and have a running board of the most popular reviewers, that, I think, could work.