It is a simple question but one that I suppose hasn't been given as much thought as many other type of reviews and criticisms out there.
I guess I'll begin a bit about my specific purpose in writing this review. I want to say that yes a great game might be great across the board to any and all reviews. While an equally bad game might also be bad to almost all players as well. My point then comes to those other videogames what about the ones that are great based on there own merits but people may view them as not good based on their tastes or experiences. I am acknowledging we all have biases and we are even aware of some of them.
I'll start off with myself.
I loved this game although I felt like the game was stacked against the player just not in a good way. Whenever I would fight another "boss" mech in this game I would almost always be beat instantly. So maybe I'm not a "good player." It doesn't mean I didn't enjoy what this game had to offer. If I would've rated it then while I played it I probably would've given it a 6.5 mostly because of how it frustrated me that I couldn't no matter how many combinations I tried find the right one for my play style.
Looking back though my review score today would be higher along the lines of 7.5 . It was a good game although lacking a story of sorts except for someone who followed the other games throughout the series. My review would've changed with time now that I'm older and more mature (maybe more lenient too).
But this leads me back to the question who should review this game. I couldn't finish the game so I couldn't give it a complete review because I hadn't experienced everything. That at the same time says something about the game though. Anyways what I want to say is should someone who thoroughly enjoys the genre review it or anyone for that matter that completes the game.
My personal vote would be for someone who enjoys that genre. Not specifically *fighting customization mechs with little story.* (Not so specific) I mean like a general action mech genre or just action game. My argument would be that even though they would probably give it a higher score as long as they've played enough games they would also be able to better compare it to other games of the genre. Hence giving a better review (written review if anything).
While a non-fan might be able to point out more things wrong with the game. The things pointed out may be more in line with things they dislike about the genre as a whole or things inherently wrong with the genre itself not necessarily that game.
I own the first of these and have played the second extensively. I dislike racing games because they feel repetitive to me; however, dub edition felt great compared to all of the racing games I have played in the past. Maybe it was more along the lines of my youth that made me believe that this was amazing. In Gran Turismo there is usually one track to go through, but when I played Midnight Club there were several racers and they would each in turn take a different track through the city. Not only that but a little bit of the environment was destructible. The rewards came sooner with equated with not only new cars but making visual modifications. I had to race many many times in Gran Turismo before I could purchase a new car. Afterwards I would practically bore myself because I could now win a few more tracks (and win) but I had to do those tracks over and over to make more money at not that much of a faster rate. To make a long story short it wasn't for me.
A similar story would have to be said about an action game turned racing. I loved the Jak and Daxter series but I never purchased Jak X cause I disliked the single mechanic the game changer was too much for me. I have not played enough racing games to be able to say what is both good and bad about anyone in particular. To me they would almost all feel bad to some extent.
So my personal bias is against racing games for the most part. I could enjoy one with a friend for a bit but the idea of unlocking more cars to drive around doesn't interest me. It could also be because I'm not much into cars myself. I would not be considered a good choice to play racing games for review because most of the games reviewed by me would not be rated as highly as maybe they deserve compared to other racing games.
I could go on into many games that I love and then be able to take them apart. Even games in genres that I love but have found to dislike the games themselves. One such game would be Prince of Persia (for the PS3). While it is a good game, I don't believe it lived up to what it should have been with most fights are with one enemy and the platforming no longer as intense.
It isn't necessarily about just game preference bias. What about completion of the game? Some reviewers fail to complete the game for various reasons while still covering a good portion. That would matter to me whether they beat the game. How good they are at the game could also lower a score or raise it simply because a gamer who gets frustrated a lot at a game will most likely lose the fun the game has due to some complication. That may speak about the game (overly complicated or bugged) or the reviewers "skill."
I am just wondering what others think about this "issue?" Whether it is an issue at all, if no one really cares about who reviews their games and what their personal tastes are or what other things are going on behind the scenes. Such as the difference between a reviewer having to purchase his own copy rather than being gifted a copy for the purposes of review from the publisher/developer. read