I often find a few posts here and there (and not only on TouchArcade) that grumble about official 5-star reviews that were undeserved. Now, obviously who reviews the game matters. I think it's general practice to assign a review to a person who likes that particular genre. Personally though, I look for the flaws in reviews. I skip the meat of any review to find every negative and if they're insignificant things, I read the full review. Out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you think about the effect of the reviewer. Should it be someone who loves the genre and is familiar with what's on offer? They could be prone to overlooking conventional flaws that they've become used to as a staple of that genre. Should it be someone who is familiar with the genre only at length? Would they be more objective, or would they rush through the game to avoid playing something they're not interested in? What do you think?
People who aren't given a 15, 20, 30, 50 or $100 iTunes voucher. Unless they have given a decent review for a decent game, unlike all the people in the promo codes and contests forum.
Oh, I was meaning official reviews on well-known websites, not iTunes reviews. No one reads those anyway.
In my opinion, reviewer can just be any person who likes to share their opinion and is capable of presenting his or her view into a structured yet easy to gasp form. I personally is not so analytical towards review of any kind that's why I only watch video reviews (Multiple) and not read em (Too long too detailed). Just to give myself a sense of whether a game is being received positively or negatively in general (To justify myself paying and giving it a try myself). That being said, things are generally not that simple for many other people. Some people read reviews just to further strengthen their own views after they have played it. Some are just trolling for the sake of trolling... So to answer your original question... I don't think it matters, people read what they want to read. If a review does not align with what they think, people read another one else where or some troll about it. If a reviewer is being completely objective. Yet his or her opinion different from the masses, what then? Does it still makes him or her a good reviewer? Or only if his or her opinion conform to the masses opinions make him or her a good reviewer? Review is just that, a person's opinion. Anyone is entitle to have their own opinion, there's nothing wrong with thinking differently (or similarly, and normally that's what the majority wants to hear).
What I value most in a reviewer is someone with good knowledge about games in general. In a way it seems a bit ageist, but I wouldn't trust someone who was born in 1997 as much as I'd trust someone who was born in 1987, purely because they've likely experienced a broader range of games. If they've done their homework, then that's fine, but I suspect a good number of them don't go back and check out older systems. Also, if they love one genre in particular, I'd still want them to have played a wider range of genres before, even if they then found out they weren't to their taste. Nothing is worse than a reviewer complaining about a game mechanic which has been a staple in the genre for years, only they had no idea. So yeah, I don't mind if they love the genre. I actually quite like it when they're a fan of a particular series that I'm also a fan of, because they'll appreciate the same aspects from past games that I do, and together we'll know exactly what we're looking for in the new one. Those types of reviews are generally more in-depth than your average IGN/Gamespot stuff though, and I think it's only right that they mention in the review how familiar they are with the series/genre.
The way I see it, is that it should be reviewed by someone new/unfamiliar to the genre, as well as an old timer... unpractical, I know, but the best way. I think every game should be accessible to everybody, new and old. For example, I don't play many RPGs because they scare me, and never seem to have a good enough tutorial on how they work... so I see all these magic spells and weapons etc. and carry on past it. If an unfamiliar reviewer were to review it and said they got on with it really well, I'd be inclined to buy it myself. Likewise, an experienced genre reviewer could say how it compares to another similar game... and point out all the necessary flaws.
I wish there was one guy who would review all the games, haha. But in this world, a reviewer should be somebody who knows their way around the genre and has good knowledge of that platform and other games for it. Not somebody who has a handful of iTunes credit to spend on anything they see fit - rather somebody who isn't sure about purchasing the game, buys it, and gives their verdict. But review sites obviously get codes.
If the opinion is capable of presenting his or her view into a top, whether it is negative or positive, it is a good review.
