But, but...you're wrong, kids!
Even with that, reviewers shouldn�t pretend like they know nothing of the past of their industry. Games are not created in a vacuum and absent from previous generations. If something objectively worked better in the past, but the new version looks nicer, you can�t claim that someone should skip over the old or should treat the new like a god.
While I can�t provide any reasonable new way to evaluate games, I think reviews should be switched over to a format that includes one than one perspective. It may not be plausible for time reasons, but instead of getting one person to lay out their opinion, we need something more.
My perfect review would include someone such as myself along with a casual player and an intermediate. I�m obviously going to be the most scrutinous, but a casual player might find more fun in a title I abhor. The intermediate would work as a control in that their tastes would be balanced between old and new. It would definitely provide a better understanding of why so many games are suddenly getting 9 out of 10�s.
Still, whatever happens with professional game journalism, I think the review score is dead. I haven�t read a single review all year that was really influenced my decision to purchase something one way or another. I was either set on buying it before or was on the fence until I tried a demo.
Even when I was on the fence, no single review persuaded me. I often had to look at multiple websites and seek out completely different opinions before I made a decision. Why not combine those into one site so that readers can pick their preferences?
Regardless of what you say, I will always be correct in saying Zelda is the greatest game series ever. At the same time, though, I will always be wrong for saying it because of �opinion.� It�s a complete farce.
LOOK WHO CAME: