We covered the idea of “the reviewer not paying the game enough attention” as well as the idea that reviewers get paid to write reviews.  So let’s tackle some other things that people say that have me totally baffled.

The truth is: everyone is biased in some direction or another.  I’ve been mulling a lot about this idea lately, because I’ve been thinking I want to review things outside of my comfort zone, but the problem for me is that because those things are outside of my comfort zone, I’m probably never going to do them justice.

I’ve talked about this before, but I’m going to bring it up again:  I don’t like shooters ...of any kind.  My very biased and overly opinionated view of shooters is that they’re lowest common denominator games that are played by people with either too much testosterone or who are sadistic to the nth degree.  These people would probably have no trouble with selling their grandma for their next inhale of Call of Duty.  [or whatever’s current in shooter circles right now.]

Now, the truth of the matter’s probably wwwwaaaayyyy more benign.  Those guys who I just wrote off as lowest common denominator pond scum?  They probably buy their girlfriends great anniversary gifts and take long walks on the beach with their dogs reflecting on life, the universe and everything.

But from my biased perspective, all I see is a group of sweaty man-children screaming into microphones about how that guy who just killed them should die in a fire.

So, I could never review a shooter as a result.  And if I did review a shooter, you can imagine that I probably won’t give it terrifically high marks, EVEN IF it is the most innovative shooter, ever.

Bias is OK.  Bias means that the games I love, I really do love with all my heart and soul.  And I will review those games well, paying attention to every little thing – nitpicking them, even.  [I’ve certainly done this before:  I liked the idea of Rise of the Dragon a whole lot, but phooey, that timer!]

My point is, very often, once you “connect” with a reviewer, chances are you’re coming back to that reviewer for their writing [one would hope] but also because their bias – the games they like – meshes well with your own.

Bias is good.

The other big problem with review writing is that – very often – the editor will set a word cap on how much you may write.  If you were reading some of the old magazines in the 80’s or 90’s you would see everything from real short “micro reviews” all the way to six page mammoth spreads that detailed the game in great depth.

What I’m driving at is that UNLESS you were looking at the spread, you could count on having one thousand or so words to get your point across.  If it’s a big game like Skyrim, or even a little one like To The Moon [which is quite complex under the hood, for the story it’s telling and the themes it’s hinting at] as a reviewer, the problem becomes, “what do I talk about?” and inevitably, something slips through the cracks.

So, that mini game that you fell in love with while playing?  The reviewer might have had to skate over that because of the deadline.  Or when you found weapon x hidden in cave y and it changed the game for you?  Maybe the reviewer didn’t have time to go off the beaten path to do that.  Or maybe it was something smaller.  Like how the character jumped between platforms.  All of these things are small things that might have made a momentary impression, but in the grand scheme of things, the reviewer just forgot that particular instant.

Again, this is OK.  Usually, if it’s important enough, the reviewer will tell you about it in a sentence or so.

But do try and keep it civil.  This works best if we’re having a conversation where differences are expected, not a screaming match in which one side is absolutely right and the other is always wrong.