Quote Originally Posted by Aussie2B View Post
I don't think professional game reviewers are playing games anything like game testers. I don't think they're playing games obsessively at all, and I definitely don't think their employers expect that of them either. The employers just want the piece done and written, as fast as possible, so they have something to go along with all of the ad space they're trying to sell. Because of that, it's true that the reviewers are sometimes forced to marathon games because they're given so little time to complete a review. They do aim to beat a game at least (but I can almost guarantee you that some games are written about without the credits ever being seen), which is is no sweat for a game under 10 hours, but it can be a nightmare for something like a long Japanese RPG. Because of that, I'd say the problem is the exact opposite. They're not playing the games enough. They're rushing like mad to get to the end, so they don't have the opportunity to dig deep and really learn and appreciate (or loathe) what it has to offer. Bottom line, reviewers need more time to more casually and extensively play a game, and their employers need to appreciate them more, pay them better, and encourage excellence in the quality of their work. There are indeed bad game journalists, no doubt about that, but the main problem is the structure of the industry created by the higher ups.
Well, if that's true, then it's no wonder all the JRPG's get dumped on all the time.

It's not so much the lack of objectivity that bothers me about these reviews. It's more the fact that so many of these reviewers (especially in the print world) seem to expect their games to be more of a movie than a game. If the game has any kind of story, they expect gameplay and cinematics to be seamlessly integrated like a Valve game or Mass Effect. I'm constantly reading how "out of place" the actual gameplay seems in the contrast to the cinematics. They comment about this in the Catherine review, in fact. I also remember Velvet Assasin getting just trashed on basically because it's level-based, and because each segment of the game is a little vignette, and none of them seem interrelated. They completely ignore the game's stellar visuals, intelligent writing, and all around FUN stealth gameplay. Yeah, when you die, you restart from the checkpoint. So what? That's a theme that's been around since Super Mario Bros. Why is it suddenly so uncool for a game to be challenging or demand a certain level of precision?

But, maybe you're right, Icarus. Maybe it all just because of a lack of objectivity. But I think if these people went back and played stuf from the pre-PS1 era they might understand that a game can be enjoyable despite not having scripted sequences and being slightly hard.

Just my 2 mesetas.