Yes. I do.
A world, not only without a demand for game review aggregation, but also without the need for worrying about the easily influenced people who glance at the aggregated score, and then proceed to fill out their newly assigned duty as a drone to go out and buy the game, thereby perpetuating the endless struggle against evil money driven PR campaigns from publishing companies. *INHALE*.
But wait, don't get me wrong, the site gets it right a lot of the time, but it is also constantly damning people's often interesting creations to hell or helping to transform hype into sales, confirming the value of pricey and unfair PR strategies. Case in point: GTA4. Quite simply, it was a great game, overly hyped. This hype made it look better than it was, and this means more people will look on metacritic and say, “oh i should buy this game cuz it’s the best” rather than “From what I’ve been informed of, this game sounds perfectly delightful”, which is how it should be done. Aggregate sites are not consistant with taking all reviews from all sites...which makes me wonder, is there an underlying corruption in the aggregate review business...one can only speculate.
I love this site. Not only because it keeps me up to date with the industry, but because there is an active and interesting community. However (here comes a land slide of rhetorical questions), am I not right in saying that it is us who really matter? Why should we leave it up to the employed games reviewers to tell us what's good and what's not? Surely we know better ourselves? In my humble opinion, I would believe these all to be true.
Understanding Our Medium
The internet is NOT a magazine, however websites don't seem to have learnt this fully yet. I mean, granted you'd never get a constant flow of blog-like information cascading down your magazine page, no! The nearest you'd get to that IRL is a tramp that's just thrown up his Alphabetti Spaghetti all over your EGM. The fact of the matter is, is that most sites still subscribe to an almost monarchic attitude towards reviews. If you are employed to write reviews, you are largely denying the people’s say on the matter. You might have people following you, but it’s just YOUR specific opinion, which is ok to a degree. I am well aware this internet thingy has had it’s uses taken advantage of however, the internet can do so much more. The fact that people come together on this site and bother to write balls like this, is proof enough that we can and want to be be influential. The only thing holding us back is the correct vessel.
I believe that I may hold the solution; a site where the only people posting reviews and such, are the members. You can sort of parallel this to like when UT and Quake III decided to go multiplayer only, which resulted in TONS OF AWESOME, Which is hopefully what would be achieved in this scenario. The user makes a review and then the community votes for the best one. Simple as pie – sorta. The internet is interactive, it’s time for interactive and meaningful reviewing!!
So yeah, tell me what you think about this. I’d love it if someone could share my newly found enthusiasm for battling against the aggregation sites, and help me on my way to battle them. =]