Again, has nothing to do with money or time.
It has everything to do with time and money. Especially when time
is money.
If the game sucks, you can easily sell it and get back most if not all of your money.
Most people would rather not waste time mucking around with a return process trying to get back
parts of their money if they can just avoid turds before they get them.
Second, just because a game reviews good doesn't mean that you'll think that it's good or deserved the score that it received.
It gives a rough baseline of quality that you can presume is there until you try it yourself.
Just like if a game gets reviewed badly doesn't mean that you'll think that it's bad or deserved the score it received.
Playing the "what if I have a crazily divergent opinion" game isn't really how most people go around making purchasing decisions.
Seriously, the only way to know if you (or anyone for that matter) will like the game and enjoy it is by playing it.
Obviously, that's the only definitive way. No one is suggesting that reviews are a
definitive answer to if you will like the game.
Reading reviews and listening to others opinions means nothing because those people may not be a fan of the series/developer/publisher, may not like the genre that the game represents, may not like certain aspects of the game or context in the game even before playing it.
All of those are perfectly valid and interesting opinions to consider from the standpoint of a review, and all largely useful to various groups.
Reviewer could also play it on easy so they can breeze through it in order to meet the deadline. Most reviews that I have read always miss so much stuff that I see and point out on the first day.
I don't think playing on a lower difficulty has as large an effect as you're supposing.
Way too many variables when it comes to reviews yet people take them so seriously which is fucking ridiculous.
People take their leisure time and money seriously, shockeroo.
Don't want to spend $60? Then wait for a sale or the game to drop in price before buying and playing it but to go based on a review from someone who's being paid to play the game and then write a few short paragraphs about the game should be of no importance to any gamer for one simple reason - that person isn't you.
This becomes a quickly asinine way of viewing products once applied to other mediums.
Don't want to spend $1,000 on that new laptop? Then wait for a sale or for the laptop to drop in price before buying and driving it, but to go based on a review from someone who's being paid to use the laptop and then write a few short paragraphs about the laptop should be of no importance to any user for one simple reason - that person isn't you.
And yes, before the inevitable, "But a laptop is totally different from a game," yes there is an obvious difference. The point is that reviews of games are used much like a hardware consumer report. People are reading them to see if the game works, if the netcode is good, if the story is coherent, if there's a long-playtime, etc etc.
Seriously, why should I go by from whoever reviews the game on IGN or GameSpot or wherever when I don't know the specifics of how they played the game, length, difficulty, etc.?
Presumably you would go by whatever reviewer you trust and who you know has a similar set of tastes to you.
Would you go by my opinion? Come on, have to got to be kidding me.
No, because you're some nameless schmoe on the internet who I've never interacted with before.
Now some other posters on GAF who I trust and whose opinions I have come to value over the past several years? Sure, I'd go by their opinion.
I know the type of game that Mafia III is going to be and it's perfect for me. I know what im getting.
But you don't know what you're getting. You know what they're selling, you don't know what you're getting. Will the story be good? Will the shooting be fun? Will the game have enough activities to not be repetitive? Will it have technical issues on your platform of choice?
You don't know anything. All you know is what you've been fed by marketing teams. And if I have no idea why someone would willingly choose to make their purchasing decisions purely based on marketing hooey, rather than try to put a few degrees of separation between the devs and themselves.
For what it's worth, I don't love the status quo of gaming journalism and reviewers right now. I think there are far too many amateurs and not enough experts. But the solution to that issue isn't to just throw the whole critic system under the bus and leave people to the whims of marketing. Given your "what if they're not fans of the genre/series/developer" comment, it seems like you're less of a free-thinker pushing back against amateurish mainstream criticism and more like you just want to live in a self-created bubble.