90% of what I believe. I know that sounds exaggerated, but I personally guarantee that statement's veracity.
What's my MOST controversial gaming opinion? Hm, I can't pinpoint one in specific, but I'll throw this one in:
I maintain the idea that 99% of game reviewers are casual gamers with no ability to analyze a game and are therefore not to be trusted by consumers under the vast majority of circumstances. I believe they are, in their collective and current state, a menace to the game industry and have had a direct part in fucking up various game series in a myriad of direct and indirect ways, including but not limited to:
- Mega Man Zero ("Waaaaah! It's too difficult! And it's not a kiddy game! Boo hoo!" And so no one bought this game that wouldn't have by default.)
- Virtually any blockbuster-status title (they will heap praise on it solely based on hype, engendering sales that should not occur), and thusly in an indirect manner, their competitors
- Call of Duty (they laughed at World at War, which was coincidentally the most competent COD in terms of maps and gameplay style, encouraging IW / Treyarch to make MW2 and every COD thereafter a fuckfest of unbelievable proportions [and rating those games 9/10 and 10/10 out of all scores possible])
- Mario Strikers (they all didn't have a clue about how to chip or why that feature was there in Strikers Charged, and missed out on the deepest part of the game that let you score guaranteed goals with skill; they also look over the fact that it is still the smoothest-playing online game on the Wii 6-7 years post-release),
- Gears of War (while its horrid fanbase ate away at the core of the game's multiplayer and whatever gun balance it had, critics totally failed to take notice about its bad MP and treated GoW like any other blockbuster shooter, giving it 9s and 10s as they did with the bad CODs; the series unsurprisingly failed to improve. Ironically, when GoWJ introduced some weapon balance for MP, they dealt the finishing blow to GoW by hating on it right then based on its low hype level, even if it was sometimes for the right reasons [i.e. its horrid SP])
- Star Fox (they think SF64 is average and treat Command as a piece of shit equivalent to Armada for reasons that are absolutely bewildering... and lookie, Star Fox is dead thereafter!)
- Sonic (Yes, I know, you may not like all of his games, but the gaming media even loathes the better ones)
- Anything and everything, by encouraging unnecessary cinematization in some games.
- Anything and everything, by emphasizing graphics as a major factor in how good a game is.
- Anything and everything, by selectively reporting on superficially attractive games.
- Anything and everything, by judging sequelized games on their hype alone (see Mega Man Battle Network reviews and contrast them with evaluations of post-WaW CODs)
etc. etc. etc. etc.
I mean... I won't act like game critics haven't done good. They've (recently) helped to revive interest in Fire Emblem of all things, and I have to respect them for that... but they've damaged so many other games by rating them inappropriately that I can't forgive them one bit.