Writing About Games

I must confess that when it comes to games i dont really resort to reveiws to find out if it is good or not, i just usually waste my money buying the game to find that one out. But if someone wants to buy a new game, if they have a loook around first therell be plently of people telling them to go for it and people telling them not to, but who has the right to say a game is good or not?

After reading into it ive learned that on the lovely world of the internet almost any person with half a brain cell can write a reveiw on the internet, including me. But for the most part their just personal opinions on how they thought a game was. But who writes the serious reveiws out there? why? what issues do they face?

Critisicm is a big issure for serious reveiwers as a lot of negative feedback from a bad gaming reveiw can come swinging their way. Which is quite hipocritical as their job is to only point out the games issues, fixing them is the producers job so for the producers to pass comment on reveiwers for noticing the bugs can leave quite a tricky working envirionment. But all of the people cant be pleased all of the time i guess

Another issue is that fact that the in some cases the company who has produced a game is the same company that the reveiwer is receiving a paycheck from, and with the game generally wanting to be sold this tactic can lead to biased reveiws that hype up the game for sales purposes. More advertising the game rather than actually reveiwing its pros and cons. This can lead to the actually qualities of the game being lost in translation over a 'but this game now!' style reveiw. But actually putting the points of a games advantages and downfalls can be tricky work without your own personal opinion being put across. after all can you positively reveiw a game that you didnt actually enjoy?

But i think people pursueing personal opinions on a game can work, because you know its just what someone thought of the game, and your not obliged to follow their opinion. Althought reveiwers opinions arent just blurted out and are usually followed up with good facts and back up to why they dont like the game, it still leaves you able to not take the reveiw to heart. But with the quality of gameplay ranging because of peoples personal tastes and what they want out of a game, how can objective ranking work?

I would say objective ranking isnt actually that neccessary or feasible for a game as a games quality and experience comes more down to the individuality of the player rather than ticking boxes for what the veiwer apparently wants. Its just like art, one painting is a masterpeice to someone and a plie of crap to the next, u cant tick boxes and say its good beacause they did this this and this to it, and the same applies to games. One person wanting the car explosion to be cool isnt goin to exactly make it awsome to the next person.