Why Videogame Reviews End Up Being So Controversial

Thanks to GamerDad for its editorial discussing why videogame reviews are sometimes controversial, and "why fanboys have such a hard time understanding that reviews are just opinions." The author explains: "I think it's simply a product of the games being essentially mechanical constructs... The mechanics of a game are often reviewed with their own numerical scores that then produce the overall total score." He goes on: "So many folks believe the pieces that create the game, because of the technology used (good or bad), define how good it can or can't be", before concluding: "Five stars out of five doesn't mean that's the greatest game and no game could be better. It does mean that it's one of the very best your money can buy in the opinion of the writer of the review."

Comments

The reason

[Have Blue]

The reason video game reviews draw so much "controversy" is that all of the controversy is generated by a small minority of extremely vocal idiot fanboys. Their allegiance to their chosen game is without question, and any reported flaws in the game are either problems with the reviewer's hardware, much less important than the reviewer claimed they were (therefore the game deserves a higher score), and anyone who could possibly hate this game must be a moron anyway because it is obviously perfect. Throw in the fact that there is essentially no penalty for being wrong, being incredibly stubborn, or endlessly prolonging an argument on the Internet, and you have communities which erupt at anything short of glowing praise.

Because that's the definition?

[Deraj DeZine]

why fanboys have such a hard time understanding that reviews are just opinions

Isn't part of the definition of a fanboy someone that considers the reputation of the game to be intertwined with their own self worth? The reason is in the definition.