In the ongoing #Gamergate consumer uprising, more than often has the topic of game reviews been brought up. The truth of the matter, however, is that game reviews and game journalism are largely a consumer-oriented industry. Game reviewers want their score to be low, but they are also human like us and have a tendency to need to put a personal spin on the story. This means that the scores they give are not always a true representation of how the game is in reality. They are subjective.
We all have an opinion about a game and what it does, and while there is generally a good bit of rancor between gamers (both old and new), there are also aspects of this angry debate which can be helpful to consumers. There is a difference between being a passionate detractor and being a purist, though. Being a detractor is where most of the current game criticisms come from, and that’s where the problem lays. Those who are being accused of having an “obsession” with games or being knee-jerk reflexive in their criticism of games generally fall into one of these categories. It’s an easy point to shoot at them, but if you look closely, the accusations are often unfounded and even unfair.
To understand why a given gamer might be upset with a game, a player needs to examine why they are playing and what they are expecting to get out of it. What parts of the game do they find frustrating? Do they find themselves wanting to stop playing, because the aspects of the game no longer provide them with satisfaction? Many gamers find that when they take a moment to analyze the core gameplay loop and what elements of a game’s script they are dissatisfied with, then the gaming experience is often much improved.