just incase you guys are wondering i was being so sarcastic about reviewers because reviewers with the ecption of a few tend to always talk about the good things, not all the bad things, or even try and strike a ballance. the second being complete reviews, think of reviewing RO in only single player as g4tv did, (and got flamed to hell for on this forum), or not playing the whole campaign through, or not trying to play multiple times on multiplayer, heck ralfster just did that faux paus himself.
Base case: many reviewers dont even try to put themselves in a mindset the game was intended for, then make sure they state that before giving their review. I'd have no problem reviewing an arcade game like tf2, i would give it a good review and still hate it, because my bias is towards realism games, but i would put myself in the mindset of an aracde game, say such, and then review it on those points. many reviewers dont bother to do this and cast a game as soooooo bloody good that no matter what kind of game you like this game will give you wargasm syndrome.
should edit in that the reason i like meta critic reviews from users is that they often post most on what influenced them most, the really good stuff, or the REALLY bad stuff; and admit it a game can be made of diamonds and incased in sh1t, and it will be sh1t. so knowing what peoples opinions are on the games and what strikes them most about it is actually IMO better then a rant of all the things you LIKE about the game.
Lastly i add that i like the escapist zero punctuation reviews of games, because he is hard as hell on games, and actually goes through and lists pros AND cons of games.
