Integrity In game journalism?

[Tebunker]

I posted this in the Paper Mario review thread. It basically refers to the Game Informer review of Paper Mario The Thousand Year Door, a game that has been getting rave reviews from reliable websites and most publications, yet GI gave it a 6.75...

An arguement broke out on the GI forums in a now deleted thread, but not until one of the game's reviewers posted this:

GI-Jeremy wrote:

Lisa and I both knew that our Paper Mario scores were going to cause controversy. Yes, we know that many people out there will love it. We also know that it is a well-made game. However, it also WILL NOT appeal to many people - I would safely say that more people will dislike it than like it. Why? Like we said in the review, it's a very kiddie game - it's target audience is clearly young gamers - I would say 10 and under. For that reason, we had to score it low. Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them. We've all played games that we personally disliked and scored them well because we've known that most people will like them, and we've also scored games low that we love, because most people won't enjoy them.

FOr example, I really like the bizarre frog golf game Ribbit King, and I gave it a 7, because it's just not for everyone. Paper Mario 2 also scored low because it's just not for everyone. If you think it's a 10 in your book, it's a ten in your book, and that doesn't change if we disagree. We're here to guide you on what games to pick up, but ultimately your personal opinion is what will make you buy a game or not.

I hope this helps.

Basically it seems like A: they're there to tell you what and what not too buy, I don't wholly disagree with that it can be helpful, but B: They knock games down a few notches because the game is supposedly "not for everyone" and "because most people won't enjoy them." Do you find that odd? I know I do.

GI just said explicitly that they let things like public opinion and mass market feelings to affect their reviews. That destroys any kind of legitimacy in my books.

I was just wonder what everyone here thinks, beyond the easy; I don't read magazines/reviews et al...

[Jumangi]

Not surprising that GI works this way. They're the Entertainment Tonight of the gaming world.

[AgtFox]

They also come from my neck of the woods *shakes head*

[DarkEL]

Man that's messed up.

That'd be like movie critics giving a new Arnold Schwarzenegger flick two thumbs up even though they hated the movie - only because they knew it would be a box-office success due to it's great marketing.

Defeats the whole purpose of even having a reviewer.  Now you can't find someone who enjoys the same types of games that you do and use their insights as a sounding board.

[AgtFox]

I'm quite surprised Billy Berghammer didn't review this title.  He used to run Planet GameCube (also my neck of the woods) and got snatched up by Game Informer to run the online aspect of the site.

What I am REALLY surprised by is that if this is the same Jeremy that reviewed Mario and Luigi: Superstar Saga and gave it a 9.5 then he has just made himself a hypocrite.  Paper Mario 2, by all intents and purposes, is another Mario RPG ala Super Mario RPG [SNES], Paper Mario [N64] and Superstar Saga [GBA].  That's my take on Paper Mario 2 at least...how about you guys?

[Dimmona]

Wow, just wow.   His review of Mario & Luigi was one of the things that pushed me over the edge to pick it up - and now he's trying to tell me that the sequel (which is probably a lot more adult looking/playing than M&L) *isn't for me*.   I mean, WTF?

I guess that means games like Animal Crossing, Pikmin 2, Katamari Damacy, Mario, etc. aren't for me either because they're too 'kiddy'.  Meanwhile, I should only buy games like GTA and Halo.

Grrr... I might have to get me an account on the GI forums and stir up some trouble...