I would like to highlight a link that I found on the web.
I think that it is a well-written piece. It is obvious that the piece was slanted. That is common. What is uncommon is that the writer, John Walker, specified exactly how he was slanted, and specified it, enabling me, the reader, to understand his true point-of-view, with higher degree of accuracy than usual. I think that most reviews should be like this.
I have mentioned earlier how some game reviewers are so bad and lazy at reviewing games. Here is an interesting excerpt from the comments:
"I remember going on a press trip to Italy where one very experienced writer happily boasted that he’d reviewed several games without even installing the product."
Yes, that actually happens. Can we say "yellow journalism" here? Absolutely. This is why I would go out and look at reviewers, then see whether or not their reviews matches common perception. You can do the same thing. Go to a game website reviews, and look at certain game scores. It helps if the game is not AAA game. Look for a score for a small Indie game.
Then go to a place to with forum that reviews the game. Amazon is a good site. There is a lot of honest reviews for the place where people vote with their own money. See if the review matches. If not? Then the reviewer doesn't know what his doing, and you can safely ignore his writings.
I do not personally write to the magazine/website that his reviewer is no good. I simply stop going there.
And that's the thing. For people who defend their false actions, there is a false sense of accomplishment. People who don't trust the bad reviewers won't tell the reviewers that they're bad. Or at least more than once. Thus, false sense of accomplishment.
The proof is in the pudding. Follow the money. If the game is critical success, but financial failure, then it makes it a suspect that either the reviewers don't know what they're doing, or maybe the PR is heavily influencing the outcome. Suspect either the reviewer or the game company. Simple.