Kill Screen, which is probably the best website about games ever has a fascinating article about game critics and how it differs from food and music critics, and what it means to be one, and of course the reactions from the readers when they disagree.

I don't read read reviews, of anything, ever. There's only one opinion that matters.

Bit of a bore after the first paragraph, to be honest.

You and your fast paced lifestyle and your drug-addled minds. Kids these days!

Represent!

But anyway like Crosmando, I do not read reviews. Except very, very rarely for restaurants and even then it's for the aggregate score and not for the details.

it is kinda an interesting article but it felt like the question was: are apple more like Oranges or limes?

Maybe I didn't read well but it didn't touch upon the conflict of interests that Critics (especially game critics) face.

This place is BAWLIN' yo. Chicken nuggitz be crispy like you never SEEN. I tasted one and I was like "WHAAAAT! Are you serious Wendy?" Mean girls workin the friers, tho. This one chick wouldn't even let me holla. I was like "please you ugly anyway."

I'll simply quote the song I'm listening to at the moment!

"This is not America
Shala la la la "

Whoa easy there, homeboy

Me neither anymore. Reviews definitely carried a lot more weight in the '90s especially as they seemed to have been much less of a marketing tool. They certainly weren't afraid to give out abysmal scores to the games that deserved it or use the whole scoring spectrum appropriately. Like so many things the internet ruined it.

I feel kind of obligated to chime in for the defence of game reviews, being a game reviewer. There's certainly a whole bunch of bad ones for sure, but I still think there are a few critics out there who try to bring a bit of class and dignity to the field (I certainly try, at least).

Plus, while the internet made it far easier for biased nutcases to shout about how great/awful something is for paragraphs, it also allowed for a huge field of amateur critics to pick from. If you can find a few reviewers you think are really great, it helps to keep everything from seeming so marketed and shallow. I know I certainly wouldn't be doing what I get to do without the internet, so I'm kind of thankful for the amateur soapbox it offers, even if the vast majority of would be Youtube critics abuse it.

Nice article by the way, though it came across as a bit too abstract at times. I almost wish they had interviewed a game critic as well, but it probably would have ruined the subtlety.

In this day and age it's a lot easier to detect shills and deal with them, either by public shame or whatever, but back then you had no way to challenge the 75% score they gave to your game that you love.

I wouldn't say it's worse now. I'd say it's better, and we're rapidly approaching a point where official reviewers are being drowned out by the masses anyways (no offense intended y'all)

Well, since you've mentioned it, I don't remember every other big game getting near perfect scores as they seem to do these days. If a game had flaws it typically was mentioned and it also affected the scoring.

There's no game critics. No video game reviewer has such big authority, is not as widely recognizable to be considered critic.

Critic is a person, who's opinion matters to huge variety of people. In video game industry, not a single name of a reviewer is known enough to be considered critic. It's rather the magazine / website name that is recoginzable,. not the reviewer itself.

What i find hard reading reviews, is finding reviews which are balanced and have pro's and con's
All too often AAA games seem to get too high ratings, and reviewers dont talk about the con's of the games (when there are obvious flipping con's). If your a critic you should balance your review. For games. For movies. For whatever.