bjork said:
It's the same to me, because I'd assume there's some sort of boss/editor/someone who approves what goes into these magazines and sites, and what does not. So to that end, the person running the show obviously has no problem placing these reviews up for public viewing.
It's really a non-issue. I don't see why they "have to" write certain way or whatever. You're not required to buy the magazine.
It's not the same thing and it's not even close.
Yes, all magazines end up having the boss-dude
No, reviews should be scored based on the QUALITY of the product not the forcasted demand
If I wrote a novel that is THE best fantasy novel of all time, should I get a lower review than Wheel of Time XIV just because your boss thinks WoTXIV is going to sell more?
THAT'S FUCKING BULLSHIT.
If an international movie is better than all the Hollywood flicks out this year, are you going to give it a 7 just because not many people will watch it?
Your publication, acting like the ignorant bunch of rotten little asses they are, assume that because a game has OMG THE BRITE COLOURS and not enough tittage that the game is going to be bought by 8 year olds who control a small portion of the market and FORE THAT REASON ALONE cannot score as high as the game deserves. Is that fair? Is that sound reviewing practice?
Reviews are supposed to appraise the value of a product - to warn or notify you if a product is better or worse than it's peers. What they're doing it estimating the retail success and shatting on real journalists