When I did these reviews, I like to think they were not biased in any way, shape or form. Sure, I only reviewed games I liked, but that's because I'm stingy on buying games and time poor with playing them.
I recently opened my local rag to see what this week's rants were all about when I noticed a newish column about gaming. It was a review of Assassins Creed Revelations. His verdict: a ridiculous 10/10.
At first, I thought that just because I have no interest in the game doesn't mean that it's crap, and therefore not worthy of a perfect score. Upon further investigation, however, metacritic gave it 80%. At best it was awarded 9/10 from an individual site.
Thats a big difference between the aggregated and the delivered scores. While I'm sure that it's got decent graphics and a story that ties into the others in the series (and yes, personal opinions will provide a range of scores), I just can't help but be annoyed at this perfect score.
If professional critics can find flaws, surely a fan can; surely a random player of games can. In my books, a game has to be pretty awesome on all levels to get that perfect score; not just be enjoyable and fit the theme of the rest of the series.
Dutch has touched on this topic before, but I suppose it's never really hit a nerve until now. I'm not even sure why it's bothering me.
What are your thoughts on games being inaccurately reviewed? Have you ever bought a game based on said review to find it was crap and the reviewer was clearly bias towards the franchise/publisher? Am I just as bad for not accepting the review due to my own bias towards the game?
