It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Tom Bramwell: I feel sorry for @TheRednerGroup today. We are blacklisted by @2KGames and it seems to be standard practice.( http://twitter.com/#!/tombramwell/status/81302961376071680 )
Story: It's because of their Duke Nukem Forever review. Like most other of Eurogamers reviews it's more well written than most other internet gaming journalistic reviews: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-06-12-duke-nukem-forever-review
Historically(from my perspective) Eurogamer has gotten hate from angry bitter fanboys who did not favor their particular game. In many ways I think we are once again reminded of how stupid gaming journalism is. How silly and unproductive it is. More than the reviewers and publishers who "cheat" I think it's the end-readers who are the most dumb. To even have the slightest stock in someone elses opinion regardless of how legit they are, is failure at highest level.
Reviews are not to be agreed with. Finding a review with the same opinion as yours is not the ideal situation. A person will never find another person who they agree with 100%. That's not the point. That's not what it's about. A reviewer who has the oppesite ideas and tastes as one self might make a much more attractive source of information.
The review is supposed to be a tool. The thing that makes it different from a normal article is the cherry - The editors own opinion sprinkled in over. But many reviewers(including MMORPG.com reviewers) get this mistaken by thinking that they need to babble on about their favorite ice cream and what they think is cool and what is not.
A good review is a source of information to give the reader some facts about a game. The reviewers own opinion should not be the factor(AT ALL) about the readers own desire to play or not to play a game. The facts presented in the written format, should give the reader their own images in their heads about the appeal/lack of appesl about the title.
That is not what is happening today. Today we have scores. The tool for the dumb. The score is an excuse for people not to read the review, but just look at the score and thus have concluded in a single number about the games worth.
A score can never be a substitute for a review. It rarely ads to it. A score can only make it swing to a certain side. There is always a "but" and always a "if. Everyone is different, have different perspectives, preferences, experiences and are on different stages in their live. A score can never be a common ground for everyone. And if it had to just have an as wide an appeal as possible, every game should get 6-7 to cather to everyone, to be some idiotic "objective" opinion that ends up servering no one with it's "neutral stance".
Remove the score, remove the self absorbed ego, and make reviews fun to read again. If all reviews were fun/entertaining to read/watch, people wouldn't need scores.
And if people had any confidence in their own opinions they would not need scores to tell them what is fun and what is not. metacritic, gamerankings, ign, gamespot... These things don't matter. They shouldn't. It's incredible weak character to feed of these things, yet we see many people who do it. Who become upset when something they like, is not echoed throughout the so called "professional gamers".
A term which I laugh at. You can't be a professional reviewer or gamer. Not anymore professional than any fratboy playing Call of Duty teenager or the middle aged mom playing Sims. This is just entertainment. But the idiots on all side of the fence is turning this into serious business, as I am a proof of now as well, since I made this thread.