The game "review" process has been broken for a very - very - long time now. Why is this even news?
The biggest issue is that these fuckers get to propagate this shit when they move from one publication to the next given how the whole review scene is one mega revolving door.
If I were a publisher and a site gave our game a poor review, let alone a poorly written one, I'd pull my ads too. Nothing wrong with that.
The fact is, the industry gives far too much credence to reviews. Case in point: Wasn't it recently that EA's head honcho said - to investors no less - that Metacritic was their yardstick? How about Microsoft, pulling games with low Metacritic scores from XBLA?
Bottomline is you reap what you sow and you just can't have it both ways.
When you take away the onus and credibility from the creative minds and then rely on a third party to gauge the work, not only do you BETRAY those who worked hard on the game, but you also give the reviewers more power than they deserve.
Unlike the movies and book reviews, which I don't think anyone pays attention to for their moving going to book buying experience, game reviews are far more passionate and subjective that these other medias.
Plus gamers are - for the most part - finicky, two timing twits who can't make up their own damn minds either way. How else do you explain why companies like EA can regurgitate the same old shit year on year and still sell gazillions? Yet, everyone is complaining. Yeah, they're complaining, but still buying them.
A niche game like Sins of the Solar Empire would *never* have been signed by *any* mainstream publisher. Period. Look what Stardock did. Over 500K units sold.This comment was edited on Sep 7, 11:06.
Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct, then go ahead
...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them