More sites think they're above the fray
It seems that gaming sites are lemmings. If one starts bagging on the methods of game reviewers others need to slap in their two cents. This means they assume they are possibly above the fray (hint: they're not) in some way, shape, or form.
The argument this time is the same old story: scoring with numbers are jacked up, reviewers might be getting kickbacks or more likely told to "gloss over" problems. Knowing these various issues, let us review then why my site should be viewed and adored by you masses of people. In fact I will call this Sphinx's-narricistic-list-of-love-my-site and we'll use this list as my measuring stick.
Game reviews, according to the article suck because
1. A lack of journalistic integrity
Response: Since I have no integrity I can't lose what I don't have. If EA came to me and offered some cash for a few nice words about PokemonSims 3000 I would do it since my opportunities to make cash running this pesthole are few and far between.
2. Video game reviewers are not impervious to hype.
Response: These are weak minded mortals with no long-term memory. Must I remind everyone about the hype surrounding Black & White which still maintains the second slot in my top two list of worst games ever? I've learned my lesson. Sure I'm excited about Quake Wars but if it blows up while running all bets are off for sure.
3. Interactivity alone makes a game better
Only a person who's never been touched by a woman in a pleasing way would think like this. In fact, you know what, no, even before I started getting some I didn't think like this. This point is stupid. Just because you get to touch it doesn't make it better. Again, look back at Black & White. It sucked watching or playing.
4. Loving video games is unlike loving film or literature.
What the hell kinda weepy, group therapy statement is this? Holy crap if I was a doctor I'd prescribe you two testicles.
5. Reviewers are pussies.
Yeah, if they have thoughts like number four they are.
6. Most video games are above average.
For every one Defcon there's fifty Sims games.
7. We're all morons.
I don't know why they only put this in one sentence because yes, game reviewers (including this one here), like sports columnists, are morons living on the coat tails of those who we only wish we could develop or design the games like the big names in our little part of the world. Some might do it out of respect and awe towards the Carmacks of the world while others might review games out of spite because they think they could do a better job if someone just gave them a shot or they were humiliated in a game tournament at the local LAN and decided that their voice would make "a difference against the tide" or some such bullshit. Get over yourselves morons, your reviews aren't that important and hopefully someday when nukes from China start obliterating our cities the servers housing sites like this will be the first to go.
8. Is the inflation of video game scores a bad thing?
Yes, why was so much time wasted on this point?
The author then suggests getting rid of scoring but says it will never happen because
"Most gamers don’t have time to wade through paragraphs of text to discover whether a game is worth their time or not (which will no doubt be shown when this article is not half as popular as the much shorter one that preceded it), and, as such, review scores will most likely stay around for quite some time."
Let me make that clear: he's saying kids (or even adults) with no jobs who sit around in the living room or looking at porn all day don't have time to read a 10 paragraph review that if printed in a magazine or book would comprise no more than two pages of true printed text. You, Mr. Game Reveiwer, are not probably writing the War & Peace of video game reviews nor will a dictionary be required to look up the grown up words. Again you ain't that important and you ain't above your own criticism.
The argument this time is the same old story: scoring with numbers are jacked up, reviewers might be getting kickbacks or more likely told to "gloss over" problems. Knowing these various issues, let us review then why my site should be viewed and adored by you masses of people. In fact I will call this Sphinx's-narricistic-list-of-love-my-site and we'll use this list as my measuring stick.
Game reviews, according to the article suck because
1. A lack of journalistic integrity
Response: Since I have no integrity I can't lose what I don't have. If EA came to me and offered some cash for a few nice words about PokemonSims 3000 I would do it since my opportunities to make cash running this pesthole are few and far between.
2. Video game reviewers are not impervious to hype.
Response: These are weak minded mortals with no long-term memory. Must I remind everyone about the hype surrounding Black & White which still maintains the second slot in my top two list of worst games ever? I've learned my lesson. Sure I'm excited about Quake Wars but if it blows up while running all bets are off for sure.
3. Interactivity alone makes a game better
Only a person who's never been touched by a woman in a pleasing way would think like this. In fact, you know what, no, even before I started getting some I didn't think like this. This point is stupid. Just because you get to touch it doesn't make it better. Again, look back at Black & White. It sucked watching or playing.
4. Loving video games is unlike loving film or literature.
What the hell kinda weepy, group therapy statement is this? Holy crap if I was a doctor I'd prescribe you two testicles.
5. Reviewers are pussies.
Yeah, if they have thoughts like number four they are.
6. Most video games are above average.
For every one Defcon there's fifty Sims games.
7. We're all morons.
I don't know why they only put this in one sentence because yes, game reviewers (including this one here), like sports columnists, are morons living on the coat tails of those who we only wish we could develop or design the games like the big names in our little part of the world. Some might do it out of respect and awe towards the Carmacks of the world while others might review games out of spite because they think they could do a better job if someone just gave them a shot or they were humiliated in a game tournament at the local LAN and decided that their voice would make "a difference against the tide" or some such bullshit. Get over yourselves morons, your reviews aren't that important and hopefully someday when nukes from China start obliterating our cities the servers housing sites like this will be the first to go.
8. Is the inflation of video game scores a bad thing?
Yes, why was so much time wasted on this point?
The author then suggests getting rid of scoring but says it will never happen because
"Most gamers don’t have time to wade through paragraphs of text to discover whether a game is worth their time or not (which will no doubt be shown when this article is not half as popular as the much shorter one that preceded it), and, as such, review scores will most likely stay around for quite some time."
Let me make that clear: he's saying kids (or even adults) with no jobs who sit around in the living room or looking at porn all day don't have time to read a 10 paragraph review that if printed in a magazine or book would comprise no more than two pages of true printed text. You, Mr. Game Reveiwer, are not probably writing the War & Peace of video game reviews nor will a dictionary be required to look up the grown up words. Again you ain't that important and you ain't above your own criticism.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home