Nintendo Player :: Database

Game reviews, we always listen to them, but why? Because someone said so? Do you ever consider who writes these reviews? People. What are people composed of? OPINIONS. We all differ in them. People think differently, always have, and always will. So why do we assume that the editors who review these games think exactly like us? Do they? Some people like action games, some people like RPGs, some people love wrestling games, some like sports games, some like racing games. Some love them; some hate them, because we think differently. It's no different for game reviews at all. Do you decide what you play solely on what your friends say? Well, you should, sooner then basing it on what an editor says. Why? Because unlike an editor, your friend probably spent more than a few hours playing a game. Yes, an editor spends mere hours on a game, and then feels they can quickly pass judgment. Is this right? Can a game be judged that easily? No, there are many secrets to a game, more so with each new system, as more and more time-consuming titles are released! What does an editor consider most important, exactly? Graphics and originality. Graphics? How important is that? Does it matter if the graphics are 'state-of-the-art' in order for you to have fun? And originality. Yes, just what we need, more games that take several hours to get the hang of. Mega Man games have always been popular, and how different was Mega Man 6 from 3? Some small technical changes, but all in all, it's essentially the same, and yet people still love every sequel, proving that originality is NOT a necessity. Now, a gamer. What do They consider important? The fun factor. That's just about it. If the game is fun, then the gamer will have fun. Make sense? I hope so, or leave now, because it's clear that if this logic does not make sense to you, you're not worth speaking with. Let's look at a fine example: Castlevania Symphony of the Night. Almost every magazine out there criticized the game (why? Because of graphics and originality, of course), yet the game is a cult classic. How can this be? A game that editors frown upon, worshipped by gamers? If this doesn't convince you that game editors don't know everything, I don't know what does. Why else is it that games may receive a good score from one editor, and a bad one from another? The fact is, just because an editor gives a game a low score, doesn't mean it's bad. There are no doubts many hidden gems throughout video game history that have received low scores from editors, and thusly were never noticed by the general public. What, all in all, am I trying to say? Try games out. If they look interesting, rent them, and find out if they're good for yourself. Don't be dependant on the word of someone who may act like a pro but doesn't know crap.