Quote:
Originally posted by xoopx@Jan 12 2005, 11:08 AM
the "proof" i need is when terrible games get 9/10 ratings. ive seen magazine slate a game that wasnt terrible, because they had arguments with the game company over previous things (amiga power and team 17 springs to mind)
frankly, i dont need to PROVE anything related to my opinion to you or anyone else. if you dont like it, thats not my problem.
|
Had you said some of their reviewers were simply bad, without any critical sense, or without any knowledge of their fields going back more than a year or two, I suspect there'd be general agreement. Because we all know of reviews that show little thought or organization, or simply, mindlessly repeat PR blurbs that make as little sense in a reviewer's mouth as they did when they were first put to paper. There are also obvious cases where reviewers were simply pressed for time, played an hour or two, and related their immediate, very positive impressions though the products were truly dogs. I've seen that happen too often, in magazines from Compute! and PC Games (in the old days) to PC Gamer and CGW. Being on a tight schedule really doesn't justify poor journalism, in my opinion.
A claim of bribery is more serious. You or I could be accused on occasion of thoughtlessness or poor organization. Probably true, too, over any decent lifetime. But accusing either of us of bribery is an allegation of a very specific act, unlike generalized thoughtlessness. It's easy to fling around, especially on the Web, where people often talk trash without having a single fact to back it up. But in order for our opinions to be worth something, they have to deal with at least a semblance of facts. If they don't, they cheapen us, not their intended targets.