I'm an eager reader of gaming digital press. I read Gamespot, Eurogamer, IGN, 1up, and check Metacritic (and listed reviews there) at least twice a week -except GS which almost always I read on a daily basis. It has come to my attention that many times, peoplejudge a game by its expectations or hopes, not for what the game really is. Latest examples could -sadly- be Mass Effect 2, GTA IV, or Resident Evil 5.
Take Mass Effect 2. A certain reviewer from a top gaming site substantially lowered his ME2 score (which happens to be that site's one and only official score, mind you) because it no longer played like a RPG -streamlined skills, much slicker combat, and all that. Or take GTA IV. Just reading a couple of user reviews (which probably wasmy mistake in the first place) shows some people complaining you can't work out in the gym, get tatoos, or grow fat.And Resident Evil 5, whichaccording to many is awful because it's a shooter and not a survival horror game.
Why can't some people judge things for what they are?
Let's say, Mass Effect 2 was called "CosmosChaos" (sure, that name alone deserves losing 2 points in the reviewer's score), GTA IV was called "Payback Big Time" and and Resident Evil 5 was called "Uroboros". I guess Cosmos Chaos would have deserved higher scores then, Payback Big Time would be both a critical and public success, and everybody would be expecting Uroboros to be a long running franchise. How much sense does that actually make?