Who should Review?

I've always been disgusted when bloggers and journalists try and post articles that are only intended to try and save their own butts. Case in point is Jim Sterling's most recent article on review scores. From where I'm sitting, the article could have been very insightful had Jim's intentions simply been on a reflection of video game scores and their place in the media, provided Jim had reflected on other sites, or other reviews that were not his own. However, I don't think that Jim really understands why he gets flack for some of his reviews. It's not because of the score. It's because he's not the right type of person to review the game.

Whether it be Sterling, or Hilary Goldstein, or Jeff Gertsmann, or anyone else in the game media, one thing that has to be outed (despite the fact that it's obvious) is that each of us has certain tastes. Despite the fact that someone (such as myself) who has a very wide variety of tastes can review a large number of games, there are still things that cannot be touched by a specific reviewer. Using myself as an example, I cannot be the person to review a JRPG, or a dungeon crawler like Torchlight or Diablo. I know that these games bore me to death, so any review from me would not be a solid indicator of the game's content, or the experience that the consumer is getting his or herself into. I would probably have to hand over the review to Dant or Yousif.

A question that I asked myself a couple of days ago was what the purpose of a review was. What is a review akin to? After a bit of pondering, I realized that there was a misconception that needed to be addressed first. Reviews, as a whole, are not simple opinion articles. Articles such as my Tuesdaily List feature, or my Philosophical Fridays series are opinion articles. A review, however, asks quite a bit more of the writer than a simple editorial. For an editorial, I'm not asked to devote ten to twenty hours playing through anything to get an idea of what an experience is, and what my final judgment on that experience is.

Video game reviews are more than just opinions. They're akin to a trial. The reviewer is asked to sit and play through an experience, write an article that describes the pros and cons of that experience, and then rank it according to a numeral scale. You're not just being asked for a simple opinion. You're being asked to describe a situation, and then render judgment. If you do a poor job of it, then your credibility is in question. If the game is a popular release, then you may be labeled as someone who simply stirs the pot for the sake of getting attention. If you do a proper job of it, then your work will be heralded by the people you work with, the people who bought the game, and probably your bosses as well.

A month ago, I had a conversation with my boss, Admir, about the upcoming release of Halo: Reach, and whether or not I should review it. At that moment in time, Admir was correct to say that I should probably let that game go, and focus on a different title. Had I reviewed the game when it was released, I simply would not have been fair to the game. Aside from the fact that I haven't been impressed with the series since the second installment, I was also sick of shooters, having reviewed Singularity and Kane and Lynch 2: Dog Days. Though Kokugamer didn't have a review of the game, I think that it was for the best. Would I have done my readers any credit with my review? I don't think so.

As it stands, whether you see yourself as blogger or journalist, the minute you sit on your computer and begin typing, you have a duty to your readers. Whether your site gets one thousand hits or one million, you have an audience that comes to you for information. When a game has quite a bit of hype built about it, the readers are depending on you to give them an accurate idea of what's coming to them. If you tell them that a game like Fallout 3 is just a boring trek through something that could be considered Obilvion 2099, and then they go to a friend's house and fall in love with it, you just made yourself look like a fool.

Since I've already driven that point home like it's a railroad spike and I'm John freaking Henry, let me answer the question. Who should review? The person who is fair. For example: Let's say that you're a website owner, and Capcom agrees to send you a copy of Dead Rising 2. You have four reviewers, and three of them are sick of zombies. However, those writers are more popular than the guy who isn't sick of zombies. I know that it's tempting to give the game to the popular guy, but your readers are going to hate you for it if he lambastes it for no reason whatsoever other than to appease his own need for self-entertainment.

Now, luckily for gamers there are dozens of sites out there that you can go to and try to find something accurate to the experience. On the written side of things, I tend to go for Giantbomb, or my cohorts on Kokugamer. From a video perspective, I really enjoy Angry Joe's videos, or Bennett the Sage's work, simply because the two of them do a fantastic job of giving the viewer an idea of what they're in for. In this day and age, video games are quite the investment, and nobody wants to get the wrong impression going in. For those of you who review video games, please have the sense to know when to step away from the table and let someone else take over. If you feel there is something that needs to be said, you've got the chance to write an editorial on it, or some sort of supplement. Be responsible.