I think that the way Gamespot approached the reviewing process of Bioshock Infinite is actually the best one as it combines the best of both worlds.

For the people, who want a more conventional review (like me) which could most likely serve as a buyer's guide for anyone whose tastes do not differ too much from the most prevalent opinions / preferences in the gaming community, there's Kevin Van Ord's review which IRC was available around the time the Bioshock Infinite was released (i.e. at the time when most people were mostly deciding whether to buy the game or not) and for the people who want something different than just a standard buyer's guide-ish review (like some posters here) or downright want reviewers to go against popular opinions and challenge established standards, there's Tom McShea's review which was published some time after BI's release (i.e. at the time when a lot of people have already beaten the game and were more interested in discussing the qualities of the game rather than deciding whether to give it a shot or not).

So... yeah. I want to give GS little a bit of praise as well. But not to specific reviewer or for specific review, but to the GS staff who have decided to give this "2nd opinion" approach a shot.

I think what you're failing to grasp is that this work is not for people like you and me. See, there's this very common phenomenon in which artists start off producing works that are more realistic. They master the techniques required to make people look like people and ducks look like ducks. Then they get bored with that, they feel constrained by it, and then they just start doing things however they want. Look at Pablo Picasso as an example. I'm willing to bet that for at least some of these artists, they aren't trying to "demonstrate skill" because for them they've already demonstrated it. They've already gone through that stage in their work, they've already demonstrated their skill to their audience (who happens to be the fine art community, not you and I), skill is a foregone conclusion. Now granted, I'm still not saying that these works of art are any good. I wouldn't know. But the existence of such works make a lot more sense when we come to the realization that these artists probably aren't trying to communicate with us. MrGeezer

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

I got 8/11. Art and whether it is good or not is subjective and while some can appreciate modern or contemporary art, others will see it as just a bunch of paint tossed (brushed) on a canvas. Others may prefer Da Vinci over Picaso. There is no one way to look at art and no two people will look at a painting the same way.

MrGeezer

I am legitimately curious what is it that causes you to hold human life in higher regard?  I'm not implying that it's a bad thing, but I just want to hear the reasoning.TacticalDesire

Anyway, reviews don't interest me much anymore like before, since I now have other, far superior, means of deciding if I want a game or not. If I'm going tor ead a review now, I want it to provide commentary of stuff about the game, what they thought about that particular aspect. If they are simply objective reviews, they are completely useless to someone who already bought or is going to buy a game. The true value for a review for me begins after I finish the game and want to discuss it and see what other people thought about the game/TV episode/movie.Willy105

It may be good in some cases; however, you should also consider the fact that fans always want their game to score as high as possible. The more popular the game is, the higher expectation the fans will have. Sure there are fans who agree with the score and understand where the reviewer comes from, but the vast majority of them are ready to butcher every criticism of the game from the reviewer. Therefore, if you don't want to upset the majority of a fanbase, just give the game a 10. rjdofu

The reviewers should NOT say what we want to hear, they must say what we NEED to hear, that's why criticism is so important.

 I agree that the reviewer can shape themselves to public demand (by changing the writing style, not overly harsh or attempting to hit fishing) and try to be as objective as possible (by mentioning which types of audience will be attracted to the game)., but ONLY to some extent. I have no respect to reviewers who just bend over to the whiny fanboys and write whatever the fanboys wanna read instead of stating his or her own opinion, that MIGHT be important to certain people who are serious in their purchase.

Well, as a reviewer you would be "trading" interests of an already known part of your audience (fans / fanboys), who you have better idea about what they are looking for, for an uknown (potentially non-existing) part of your audience who just "might" find your different approach more useful? I dunno. That sounds like a quite risky trade off to say the least.

On a principle, I could agree with it as I would not like to see the dictate of the fanboys to be the norm either. However, such approach would have to turn out to be useful to some signifficant part of the audience eventually. Otherwise it would be just reviewers completely misunderstanding the needs of their audience and it that case it would probably be better if they changed their minds.

From Gamespot's review guidelines:

Your time and your money are on the line when you're deciding whether or not you should purchase (or rent) a game. Our editorial staff consists of discerning, value-conscious game players, and it's been our mission since 1996 to provide all the information you need to decide whether a given game is right for you...

...Our reviews are written with the prospective customer in mind--someone who's naturally interested in playing a new game and has a limited amount of time and money to spend. Our editors approach each review strictly from that perspective. In turn, our reviews are not intended to validate or support the beliefs of hardcore fans, nor are they intended to provide feedback to developers or publishers about how a given game could have been improved. Our reviews are only designed to tell you, the game player, to what extent a game is worth your while.

So by empowering women, we've disempowered men, stunting their growth to adulthood? I don't agree. Just because more and more women are out there making a life for themselves doesn't mean men have less opportunity for success. Men can still be men while man-children choose to remain man-children.Guppy507

Not sure if I would call myself a PC gamer. I do play games on PC, but I don't play much, so I dunno if I am really a "gamer". :?

Anyway... No.

Nowadays, I almost exclusively play WRPGs, action WRPGs or at least action games with a bit of freedom of exploration and few RPG elelments here and there (e.g. Dishonored) and most of those are multiplatforms, so I manage to get by by only having a PC just fine.

And since even most of upcoming games that interest me are coming to PC as well, I am not contemplating purchasing a console let alone be excited about it at all. I am a bit worried about potential jumps in system requirements in upcoming years tho. Given that, like I said, I don't play much, I am not too keen on upgrading my PC for maybe 2 or 3 games per year.