One of the main problems facing game reviewers is that they need to give an objective view of games rather than just their opinion. If they didn't do this, reviews would be unreliable to people looking to buy the game. As these are quite expensive items to buy, readers place a lot of trust on the reviewers.
There is also a lot of pressure from advertisers. The games companies obviously want their game to receive a good review, and there is some question whether this can lead to biased reviews. For example executive editor of Gamespot Jeff Gerstmann was fired. Although in was never confirmed, the website had been paid a considerable amount of money for advertisement space for Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. Gerstmann had given the game a bad review,. His review was removed from the site as the publisher Eidos threatened to pull its contract with the site. This lead to readers becoming more un trusting of the reviews on the site.
Journalists also have a limited time to produce their work; in the UK a gaming magazine has nineteen days to play and review the games and to produce the issue. This is very little time which may lead to some reviews seeming rushed and less accurate.
The wages of the journalists are paid by the websites and magazines that employ them. This could lead to some reviews being bias, such as the example above. There are also a lot of reviewers that are not employed by anyone, such as people who blog about games they've played and their experiences with them.
Many review sites and magazines use a ratings system for reviews. However, this can cause problems. There are so many different types and genres of games intended for different audiences that it is difficult to put them all on the same scale. For example, a casual game intended for children may score a very good score, but that does not mean that someone who enjoys first person shooters would enjoy that game. Everyone has a different taste in what they like to play. However, this form of ratings can allow people to see at a glance what to expect from a game.
New Games Journalism (NGJ) is new way of reviewing and writing about games. They often disregard the objectivism of the more traditional review style and opt for a more personal view. It focuses more on the gamers experience rather than analysing the game itself. This could be a good thing, as it gives a more realistic account of what someone playing would think of the game, rather than picking apart the game analytically. This could be better as it's a lot more relatable to than the traditional reviews, as most people don't pick apart games in see them for the little details, but rather as the whole experience. However, this means that the reviews are a lot more likely to be bias as they don't give an objective outlook, but rather as an individual persons view of the game. Not everyone is going to agree with the way they saw it. Personally, I think that both forms are good, but new games journalism is more likely to be entertaining to read.
