Is Everyone a critic these days?

[Parasondox]

Short and sweet time.

So with the rising trend of critics on the internet, does anyone still value or listen to the professionals? You know, those who are paid and certified as either movie or game or TV or whatever critics. More and more users on the internet now consider themselves to be "critics" to just about everything anything but where is the line drawn? Just read a user review on IMDB and you may get the picture. Some often let nostalgia cloud their judge or just only review something that they hate or disapprove of.

Maybe less people trust the professionals because they are being paid and could be easily have their opinions altered by a certain company. Actually that could happen to anyone. Sounds like it happens often with gaming but what other mediums.

Share what you think?

 

[Lilani]

I think everyone has always been a critic, it's just in the past only "professional critics" had the means of writing down and publishing their opinions for all the masses to see. Now with the Internet, everybody can publish any opinion at any time they want.

I don't think this will eliminate professional critics and analysts, though. There will always be a place for people with a broader and deeper knowledge on something to give their opinion on things. Again, people have always disagreed with critics or had their own opinions, it's just now we actually have a means of expressing these agreements or disagreements beyond discussing with friends at dinner or something.

 

[Ranorak]

Why would someone's opinion be more valid if they get payed for it?
In fact, one could make the argument that because money is involved people might be biased, one way or another.

I don't care if a critic get's payed, I care what his arguments are.
If he thinks a game is shit because "It doesn't have enough blood, and the graphics are all cartoony" I know I probably will not agree with him.

If a person says a game is good because "It has solid mechaincs, like for instance blabalba" And comes across as someone who knows what he's talking about, I'm more inclined to listen to him.

 

[Parasondox]

Why would someone's opinion be more valid if they get payed for it?
In fact, one could make the argument that because money is involved people might be biased, one way or another.

I don't care if a critic get's payed, I care what his arguments are.
If he thinks a game is shit because "It doesn't have enough blood, and the graphics are all cartoony" I know I probably will not agree with him.

If a person says a game is good because "It has solid mechaincs, like for instance blabalba" And comes across as someone who knows what he's talking about, I'm more inclined to listen to him.

So basically someone with knowledge of what they are reviewing rather than a fan or anyone just being bitter and nitpick? That I agree with.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

Well, what do critics do other than spreading their own opinions to an audience of people, rather than just those close to them? Everyone has opinions, and most people will open up to their opinions about something if said opinion is negative. The difference is, some people are paid to do so to an audience of people while most either keep it to themselves, express it over the internet to anyone who will listen or just keep it to the people close to them who care.

So yeah, I suppose you could say everyone is a critic. Everyone has their negative opinions and has reasons for why those opinions are the way they are.

 

[TheBelgianGuy]

It's just annoying when you're reading these comments, and people go "You like this game I hate, you must've been payed by the company because my opinion is absolute truth and 100% sacrosanct." or "You hate this game? lol knew you sucked as a reviewer."

 

[Zhukov]

I 'unno.

I just listen to people who sound like they know what they're talking about.

Nasal nerds on Youtube with a petty axe to grind... not so much.

 

[BeeGeenie]

Yes, everyone's a critic.

Incidentally, I find your thread to be adequate. You could have included a link to some independent source material, or maybe an interesting gif. On the plus side, it was, as you say, short and sweet; brevity being the soul of wit.

I give it a 4 out of 5.

 

[Username Redacted]

I tend to take a variety of opinions into account with regards to criticism. I'll usually eliminate outliers from consideration (i.e. "BEST GAME EVAR!!!" or "The movie was so bad it killed my family"). More on topic, yes, everyone is a critic because someone way back in the proto-internet days thought that having comment sections on things was a good idea. I assume that whoever thought this has since, like the guys apologizing for pop-up ads, realized the folly of their ways.

All that said with regards to one of my preferred genres of games I'm 99% of the time going to completely ignore critics and reviews in terms of taking them into account with regards to whether or not the purchase gets made. That genre would be fighting games. This is simply because I have yet to see a professional reviewer talk about things that I care about as it related to the genre. I (to a point) don't care how pretty the fighting game looks. I don't care about the story mode (any mode that allows me to pick a single character and play against a series of CPU enemies is fine). I don't care how accessible the game is. I care about: character diversity, game balance, quality of netcode, robustness of the training mode. Of those criteria only character diversity and training mode occasionally come up in reviews as, to be perfectly honest, I have yet to see a professional reviewer who was good enough at fighting games to give a relevant opinion on game balance.

 

[Parasondox]

Yes, everyone's a critic.

Incidentally, I find your thread to be adequate. You could have included a link to some independent source material, or maybe an interesting gif. On the plus side, it was, as you say, short and sweet; brevity being the soul of wit.

I give it a 4 out of 5.

At least if I went to IGN they would given me 10/10 and Thread of the Year if I "$$$$encouraged$$$$" them.

 

[Neverhoodian]

Personally, I never took too much stock in professional critics and reviewers, even in the days before the internet. I get most of my feedback from my friends and relatives, since they know who I am and what I like. Their input means more to me than some stranger with a camera pointed at his/her face that I've never actually met.

That said, I do enjoy certain internet reviewers like Andre the Black Nerd, but it's more for the entertainment value of the reviews themselves.

Spoiler

 

[hermes]

Everyone is a critic. Internet just allowed everyone to have an audience.

About professional critics, I think the main advantage they have is proven experience and context about what they are writing about. You may object to their critique (and, by all means, do... at least that proves you have some critic sense), but the thing about critics that are paid to critique is that they have experience in the medium.

Because that is their line of work, they have to play any sort of games and more games than most of us do on a regular basis... many of them have been doing it for years. So, when they say "I liked X element of this game", you know where they are coming from, and they probably have the experience to compare it with other X elements.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Not everybody's a critic, but everybody has an opinion, and the internet provides the stage. As Anton Ego put it, "Not anyone can be X, but talent can be found anywhere".

 

[Ishal]

Well, that depends, does everyone have what it takes to be a critic?

Internet access, a keyboard, a petty axe to grind, the delusion of being humorous. Bonus: a cursory knowledge of TVtropes.