I think you have to leave behind the criticisms about foul play behind the scenes unless you have some sort of fact to back it up. No doubt it happens, but probably not as much as people expect and less nefariously. Oli's Diablo review had some pretty harsh criticisms in it and makes it clear that Blizzard's direction had some pretty pertinent drawbacks. |
More importantly, that's kind of the point. I value Oli's reviews, Tom's, Ellie's, John's. Keza, when she was here. If I could get two bits of writing on a game I'm interested in, I'd be all for that. It is not an issue of go check somewhere else, because there aren't many alternatives to Eurogamer's elite few. The quality of reviews at most places is utterly vile.
To those who don't share that opinion and other reviews are good enough for you, good for you. But for someone like me, second opinions have a real utility if the writers are good when the reviewing circuit is as lacking in writing talent as this industry's is.
However, if Eurogamer was to implement, it would be tricky. If both writers have nearly identical views, then it might be really boring to hear the same things said twice, kind of how it gets after reading Game of the Year choices. So it could be limited to when the two reviewer have different enough opinions to provide a contrast. But if it was limited to that, you would have people screaming that so and so gets unfair treatment.
JinTypeNoir 4,343 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 9 years ago