The problem is not reviews or reviewers. The problem is you.

[Zhukov]

Over the years I have heard a lot of shit talked about professional video game reviews and the people who write them.

I'm sure all these phrases will be more than familiar to anyone on this forum:
"This review was obviously paid for!"
"This reviewer is just a simpering fanboy! Disregard anything they say!"
"The publisher of this game has ads on this website, conflicting interests!"
"This review is a paid hatchet job!"

(Now, just to make my views clear in the interests of disclosure or whatnot, I don't have proof one way or the other in any of these cases. I don't really believe the review business is anywhere near as endemically corrupt as a lot of people would seem to fervently believe. That said, I think there's something to the not-biting-the-hand-that-feeds argument in relation to ad revenue and there are some sources I simply wouldn't give the time of day to, for example, an Official Xbox Magazine review of a AAA Xbox exlusive because, well... duh.)

However, y'know what I have never, ever, ever, ever ever seen?

I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever seen someone say something to the effect of the following:
- "I agree with the high rating given in this review, but I also think it was clearly paid for by the publisher."
- "Oh man, right on! Great game! However, given the ads on this sight I don't think anyone should ay attention to this review."
- "I think the game is just as bad as they said it was, but I also think a competing publisher paid them to pan it."

In other words, I've never seen people make accusations of bribery/corruption/conflicting interests/fanboyism toward a review that confirmed their own opinions.

The key word there is confirm. As in confirmation. See, people, or at least a great many people, do not read or watch video game reviews for information or purchasing advice. Mostly they do it in search of confirmation. They read reviews of games that they already have an opinion on, either because they're hyped about it, or because they have an axe to grind or they've already played it. And when the reviewer does not provide that confirmation they get angry and some of them start spewing baseless accusations of corruption without any evidence whatsoever besides their own butthurt, since we all know that anyone who did have the slightest shred of evidence it would just take it to Reddit or the like. This is especially obvious when it happens in regards to a game that hasn't even been released yet. Gamers will pour hate and accusation on a review that they disagree with before they even get their hands on the game in question.

Now, before I come across as the smuggest prick on the planet (too late?), let me make it clear that I include myself in that. I read reviews of games that I've already played or already decided to buy or not. When those reviews don't confirm my views it makes me a wee bit grumpy. (Of course, I don't take that grumpiness and start accusing people of shit, since I'm not quite a complete cretin.) When the review agrees with me, it makes me a bit happy. The only time this doesn't happen is when the review is about a game I've never heard of or know nothing about, in which case I'm probably just reading out of curiosity.

So, if you've ever accused a review of being paid for without the slightest shred of evidence other than your own disproportionately bruised feelings, you should know that it isn't the review or the reviewer that's the problem here. It's you.

EDIT:

PS. Also, consider: if a games journalist was offered a bribe, which course of action would be the most profitable? Taking the bribe, cranking out a paid review and getting on with their day, or promptly publishing an article saying "EA tried to bribe me, here's the proof" and making major bank AND integrity cred off the ensuing gamer outrage?

 

[hazabaza1]

News update: People are dumb! Shock horror!

Sadly not everyone thinks with logic and understanding that there are opinions beside their own, so it's likely that this post will do just about nothing for people who think this way. Hell, I remember someone here who thought a game must have paid for coverage because everyone was playing it all at the same time and the game was "unknown" (despite it being quite a well known and wanted indie game, and the time that everyone started playing it was release day.

 

[LaoJim]

- "I agree with the high rating given in this review, but I also think it was clearly paid for by the publisher."
- "Oh man, right on! Great game! However, given the ads on this sight I don't think anyone should ay attention to this review."
- "I think the game is just as bad as they said it was, but I also think a competing publisher paid them to pan it."

I might just try some of these out at the next major review just for a laugh.

Thing is, if a game genuinely is good, why would companies need to pay to get good marks? It can only back-fire on them if they are discovered. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure that the third one could involve some very nasty lawsuits if a company is paying to damage another companies reputation.

They read reviews of games that they already have an opinion on, either because they're hyped about it, or because they have an axe to grind or they've already played it.

I tend to be the opposite. There's so much hype these days, I prefer buying a game knowing roughly what to expect, even if its not perfect. If a game is give 9 out of 10 and ends up being an 8 I'm disappointed, whereas if its reviewed as a 7 and I think its an 8 than I feel happy. If I have played a game, I find it much more interesting to read a review of someone who didn't because they have probably noticed things I did (or enjoy different things). For example I enjoyed Assassin's Creed 2 but I was very interested in Jim Sterling's review of it (which he gave it a 3 IIRC) because he was looking at the game in a very different way from me. When I'm considering buying a game I tend to read the highest scoring review on Metacritic and also the lowest scoring one.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The key word there is confirm. As in confirmation. See, people, or at least a great many people, do not read or watch video game reviews for information or purchasing advice. Mostly they do it in search of confirmation. They read reviews of games that they already have an opinion on, either because they're hyped about it, or because they have an axe to grind or they've already played it. And when the reviewer does not provide that confirmation they get angry and some of them start spewing baseless accusations of corruption without any evidence whatsoever besides their own butthurt, since we all know that anyone who did have the slightest shred of evidence it would just take it to Reddit or the like.

Yep, this is me, minus the spewing of accusations.

Nobody wants to be alone in their opinion, so it's nice when someone who is better at words than you are shares yours. There are plenty of times though where I'll agree with a review, but I feel it's stacking on the praise/bile a bit too much.

And when I get pissed off at a review, it's usually because I'm frustrated that I can't call them on how they're wrong, except for placing a comment which they won't read anyway.

 

[shrekfan246]

It's funny how often the accusation gets leveled at reviewers, considering how incredibly rare stories about paid-for reviews are; as in, there basically aren't any.

I mean, I suppose it's not a massive logical step to assume these people are all thinking it's a massive cover-up and conspiracy theory, but that's baseless supposition as well and we wouldn't want to be building up those dreaded straw men in here, would we?

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

However, y'know what I have never, ever, ever, ever ever seen?

I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever seen someone say something to the effect of the following:
- "I agree with the high rating given in this review, but I also think it was clearly paid for by the publisher."
- "Oh man, right on! Great game! However, given the ads on this sight I don't think anyone should ay attention to this review."
- "I think the game is just as bad as they said it was, but I also think a competing publisher paid them to pan it."

In other words, I've never seen people make accusations of bribery/corruption/conflicting interests/fanboyism toward a review that confirmed their own opinions.

I have a theory, the folks who usually agree with reviews aren't very vocal about it. It may be an oddity, but humans seem less inclined to vocalize (through speech or text) their positive thoughts. Especially on the internet.
Speaking of gaming sites, I personally try to be objective when I post anything but I also find myself less willing to post my positive thoughts after multiple experiences of extreme negativity directed towards my opinion. People seem to jump on positive reinforcement unless said game in question isn't a AAA title or one of the relative few AAA games that are seemingly universally liked. I've been called an apologist, or corporate shill and many other terms that I feel are inflammatory and/or derogatory. I'm abhorrent towards toxicity and negativity, I don't feel they're useful in any arena. I've come to feel that constructive criticism is beyond some people, and the absolute negativity exuded seems to be infectious.
Again this is a theory and my own personal experience which in no way represents the whole, just my observations.
I find it sad because I read some posts with the weight of intelligence behind them but that intelligence is diminished by ignorant negative criticism that seemingly has no hope of gaining any ground. I don't expect folks to praise a game they do not like, that would be ludicrous. I do however wish those who claim to be intelligent would at least have some objectivity and tact. Seriously, would it hurt to point out something the reviewed game in question either did well on, or a concept the developers were trying to get across that didn't pan out but could have made the game better? Is it so hard to, after reading a review you didn't agree with, to at least give valid reasons why you do not agree without resorting to shouting down or attempting to shame the reviewer in question?
Also on a side note, if you read any article that happens to have some mistakes in grammar or spelling, would it hurt not to be such an ass in pointing such discrepancies out? The great thing about internet news sites is that it isn't print so these minor mistakes can be changed, and editors need not worry if they miss something they can't retract or correct later. I know editing is a stressful job, and I've known a few editors who also wear other hats and have a lot of work on their desk, so mistakes will be made by both the author and editor alike.
Anyway, sorry for the lengthy reply and digression, so to sum things up:
My theory is that people who agree with a review tend not to post their thoughts, possibly because they'll be lost in a wave of negativity that seems to follow most reviews. Or possibly, in my case, they do not wish to become entangled in a back and forth irrelevant discussion on how they are wrong and should feel bad for it.

Spoiler: Sidebar thoughts, not necessarily on topic but still feel this needs to be said

Last thought and plea to the community at large here: Is there any reason why we attack each other for our opinions other than what seems to be base territorial pissing matches? We as gamers, nerds, geeks, dorks, hobbyists, whatever you want to call yourself, should support each other's opinions whether we agree with them or not because our diversity of opinions, likes and dislikes, are what makes being part of this culture so great. We spend so much time breaking each other down that it seems we're less interested in moving the culture forward and bringing us together. I'm not saying we shouldn't have dissenting opinions, but we should at least have the decency to be a bit more civil towards each other. This culture, this community is still in its fledgling years, we're barely scratching the surface of what could be and if we spend our time fighting each other, even just with words, we're losing out on something else. I cannot explain what that something is, but each with negative post, each time I read something that has no intrinsic value other than to shout down another's opinon, I feel we lose as a whole.

 

[Something Amyss]

Thing is, if a game genuinely is good, why would companies need to pay to get good marks?

Keep in mind, I don't believe paid reviews happen. Or, at least, they don't happen often with major publications. But if we're talking about this hypothetical world in which corporations are straight-up buying reviews, I'd say a lack of confidence in the product, a lack of foreknowledge of your personal opinion on the game, or a desire to get the maximum potential out of their exposure would all be factors.

Remember, "the fix is in" is something that usually comes up with popular games in the first place. Games that sell well, games that are liked by their audience, etc. Your Halos, your Grands Thefts Autos, your Calls Ofs Duties.

This is also a problem on a larger scale because you have issues both with perceived overscoring and perceived underscoring. If you are more positive than someone feels you should be, you were paid off or you're a fanboy. If you are more negative than someone feels merited, you're a hater or you suck at the game. The latter being an exceptionally difficult issue, because you can get bitched out for giving a game a nine out of ten.

But in any case, would these companies who are hypothetically buying reviews in the first place equally hypothetically leave anything to chance? For that matter, with how the "paid" review never comes to light, what risk is there in paying for a negative review?

There's so much hype these days, I prefer buying a game knowing roughly what to expect, even if its not perfect.

I'm similar. To be honest, I'll probably get the games I really want anyway, unless the reviews point to something game breaking, like your save files being wiped or the coding actually tearing a hole into a hell dimension where Dark Faq'thil'ra awaits to consume your soul. I mostly want to know where my money is going.

But I also think I'm in the minority, at least as far as consumers who talk about games on the internet. There's not exactly a lot of "That review was fair, even though I disagree with your conclusions!" going around.

I disagreed with Greg Tito's assessment of GTA V, for example, but I did defend his criticism. I doubt he needed it, mind, but still.

Both sides, both "paid reviews" and "haters gonna hate" seem to come from the same sort of "sour grapes" mentality.

 

[ron1n]

Of course it's for confirmation.

We are now at a stage where by the time official reviews are posted, there's already been so much hype, media releases, interviews, convention footage, YouTube personality previews etc. that people have already made up their mind about games.

On top of that, you have the fact that a large number of titles are now sequels in franchises of various sizes. I mean, you don't need to read a review of a CoD games anymore as everyone has long since figured out whether they love/hate what the series is.

Oh and of course there's also the pre-order culture. God forbid the fanboy comes to terms with the fact they put down $100 for that collectors edition only to find out the game is shit. Denial is so much comfier.

I will never feel sorry for game news sites though. They've helped create the situation with comments like 'Believe the hype' and making advertisements masquerading as 'previews' for titles on a regular basis.

The importance placed on scoring and the rise of meta-critic has reinforced this sentiment as well. You will never find a bigger indicator of confirmation obsession than numerical ratings. It's the same reason why 'Top Ten' lists are always so popular. It's not that people give a shit about what's on the list, they just need to see whether their picks are listed and then complain because they weren't mentioned or aren't high enough.

The reality is though, sites have become dependent on this kind of mentality to maintain some kind of relevancy. I'd imagine as far as their concerned, the passionate (even if incredibly stupid) audience is more numerous than a level-headed passive readership.

 

[Super Cyborg]

I remember listening to one of the Co-optional podcasts with Total Biscuit talking about while most people aren't bribed to give good reviews, reviewers being given extra stuff by companies, even if it is just a gift, can look bad as a professional reviewer. While reviewers are going to be fair, because it would be stupid to risk their career because of a few bribes to make one score higher, they need to be careful to not tred the ground of showing off stuff they get for reviewing games.

As far as reviews go, I only buy a few games when they first come out, because I know I will probably like it. I am more careful since Other M though. The most recent game that I waited reviews for was Conception II, which I had a feeling I would like, but had to make sure that the reviews confirmed that the game was what I thought it would be, which it was. I have so many games at this point that I won't be buying many, if any, games when they first come out.

 

[Floppertje]

So you're saying paid reviews just don't exist at all? I don't know about that...

Also, as usual, the internet is oversimplifying things. There's no dichotomy, it's not either 'pure objectivity' or 'paid review'. Imagine you're the reviewer for a site where a game is advertised and you are writing a review for that game. You, or your editor, might hit upon the notion that 'hey, if I trash this game, they might not be so keen to advertise here anymore.' which means the site loses money and you might be out of a job (yes, also an oversimplification).
Or how about that Civ: beyond earth preview? Greg lauded the devs for being 'genuinely kind and passionate'. Do you think his pleasant experience at the studio did not put the game in a better light than it might have been if the devs had been jerks? I'm not saying any of this happens on purpose, but your claim that people who read reviews are just wrong when they say they think a review might not be objective is a bit short-sighted.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Well, there's no doubt that it's the audiences' fault.

Demand remains high for games, despite the great disconnect between audience and critic (or the shady practices in marketing).

Under and overscoring is inevitable; as more games arrive (especially the bandwagoners) a greater basis of comparison forms. But a critic is supposed to judge a game on its own merits, while the consumer will want to know if the new game is better relative to other offerings. That's one possible explanation for score skewing that assumes no real wrongdoing.

(which is why I left review scores in the bin long, long ago and focused on detail.

While it's quite possible to fake a detailed review, it also takes far more effort than a review score hike/bomb, and because of that, it's incredibly unlikely that consecutive detailed reviews are faked.)

But even if one assumed that developers/publishers were paying for reviews/bombs, the public still buys enough games in the end. Whatever is actually happening, well, it's working enough to keep doing it.

 

[Malbourne]

While I like to think I go into every review with a clear mind and without preconceptions, I know on some level that I have a knee-jerk reaction to reviews I don't agree with. It's probable that some reviews are paid for, but I can't imagine lots of studios have the budget to do that alongside an advertising campaign. It's also a certainty that many commenters are exaggerating to make a point (not a good point, obviously). When I read a review for a game, it's usually to compare my own thoughts after playing it or to temper my expectations for it.

It's not hard to see why viewers may react so stubbornly, given that the scoring system they're usually provided with for convenience is in itself a rote number with little to no qualitative merit.

 

[Zhukov]

Thing is, if a game genuinely is good, why would companies need to pay to get good marks? It can only back-fire on them if they are discovered. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure that the third one could involve some very nasty lawsuits if a company is paying to damage another companies reputation.

Thing is, it wouldn't be worth the risk even for a bad game. No PR department wants to be dealing with the next Jeff Gurstman-Kayne & Lynch-Gamespot situation.

If a games journalist was offered a bribe, they would do much better to just publish an article about how they were offered a bribe. They'd make major bank off the traffic of outraged gamers and make a name for themselves as someone of integrity into the bargain.

So you're saying paid reviews just don't exist at all? I don't know about that...

Nope. Not what I said.

When it comes to whether or not paid reviews actually happen I said "I don't have proof one way or the other in any of these cases. I don't really believe the review business is anywhere near as endemically corrupt as a lot of people would seem to fervently believe. That said, I think there's something to the not-biting-the-hand-that-feeds argument in relation to ad revenue and there are some sources I simply wouldn't give the time of day to..."

My point is not whether or not they happen. My point is that the accusations from the public are not based on evidence or even on suspicion. They are based on petty hurt feelings and a desperate scramble to discredit those who do not provide the confirmation that they seem to crave.

Or how about that Civ: beyond earth preview? Greg lauded the devs for being 'genuinely kind and passionate'. Do you think his pleasant experience at the studio did not put the game in a better light than it might have been if the devs had been jerks?

So... he went and met the developers, decided that they were genuinely kind and passionate people, then wrote a preview article in which he said, "I went and met the developers and I think they are genuinely kind and passionate people."

Not seeing the problem.

Still not relevant to my point anyway, since another comment I've never, ever, ever, ever, ever seen is, "I generally agree with the points made in this review, but the developers were really nice to the reviewer when he went and visited them to preview the game, so we should all disregard it!"

 

[Conner42]

I think the whole issue is what we feel like what reviews are supposed to be doing in the first place. And, in this regard, I'm probably in some sort of minority here or something to the effect of some sort of snob because I base my life on these kinds of things.

Anyways, it seems like people expect reviews to be a sort of "buyer's guide," as in something that should inform them whether it's "worthy" of their money.

This is absolute horse shit and it bugs me to no end.

Reviews and critiques should be more than that. They're analyses, they're a way to open up a conversation, they're supposed to help us learn about what we watch and all of the games we play and all of that. Turning this thing into a "buyer's guide" is really offensive.

I want their to be more reviews and game opinions that I disagree with, but not because the people were too scared to leave the fucking "4 point scale." If there's any reason why Yahtzee is somebody I keep following as a game reviewer, it's because he's not afraid to get down and actually go through a game in a challenging and insightful way. No, I don't agree with him a certain things, but he's opening these things up to discussion. The things he talks about are worthy of being talked about and his voice is interesting enough for me to keep following him.

Anyway, that's my take on it. I know it might sound a little extreme by belittling the "buyer's guide" attitude, but...well, I just hate it because it seems to validate the worst kind of attitudes I keep on seeing!

 

[Zhukov]

It's probable that some reviews are paid for...

Based on what?

If you have the slightest shred of evidence, hell, even dodgy coincidental evidence, I suggest you take it to Reddit or somewhere similar and reap yourself some internet fame.

It's not hard to see why viewers may react so stubbornly, given that the scoring system they're usually provided with for convenience is in itself a rote number with little to no qualitative merit.

And yet, they never seem to object to the rote number with little to no qualitative merit when the rote number with little to no qualitative merit is one that confirms their opinion.

"Oh man, I totally agree, you nailed it, great game, credit to the series, maybe even the best one yet! A well deserved 10/10. Gotta say though, this scoring system is pretty arbitrary and uninformative. I mean, it's a rote number with little to no qualitative merit," said nobody ever.

Well, I liked it the game just fine. I think this guy just doesn't understand the genre. He's a known Sony fanboy anyway, so who cares what he says. Besides, review scores are a shitty system, I mean when you get right down to it, "6/10" doesn't really tell you anything about the game", said every confirmation-hungry gamer between here and Timbuktu.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Even when a review agrees with me I have a hard time caring. There's just too many of them. They mean nothing in the grand scheme of gaming. The best thing a review can do is be interesting, so at least you're not wasting your time with it.

 

[Gennadios]

OP, the cries of reviewers being paid for is just a symptom of the distrust of game reviews.

The real problem was mentioned but not fleshed out at all, video game reviews are feature and performance heavy but don't really offer the purchasing advice you mentioned - whether a game is worth buying or not.

I'll use Max Payne 3 as an example as that was my last purchase that was both day 1 and based on reviews.

At it's core the game is a setpiece shooter no different than Modern Warfare/Battlefield, with a generic Rockstar story, and Bullet Time.

The setpiece shooter porting had major issues, but they only really became prevalent in Hardcore mode, where timing and line of sight became key. Since reviews are basically normal mode speed runs, the fact that the single player replayability is downright shit was never reported. Normal mode gameplay was competent but nothing that really stood out from other spunkgargleweewee.

Was the game worth the $70 at launch? F*** no, but I wouldn't be anywhere near as bitter if I'd gotten it on a Steam sale.

The point is, reviewers get their product for free, that alone makes them ignorant to one of the main concerns of the average gamer, and unreliable sources for purchasing information. There's no way of knowing whether they just slapped the 90 score onto the game because it's a competently made game that hits all the AAA checkmarks, or because it'll be worth the cost.

 

[WildFire15]

Scoring systems arn't exactly brilliant either. The 'average' score seems to be around 70, rather then 50 where it should be. UK magazine PC Zone set it's scoring to just that so a 90 or more actually meant something (with a 'classic' award to go with it while 75/80-89 scores got 'must buy').

 

[Zhukov]

The real problem was mentioned but not fleshed out at all, video game reviews are feature and performance heavy but don't really offer the purchasing advice you mentioned - whether a game is worth buying or not.

A reviewer cannot tell you that. It's completely subjective.

For example, I paid release price for The Last of Us. I thoroughly enjoyed it, going back to play it several times over. I loved the story, loved the dialogue, thought the graphics were pretty, enjoyed the weighty feel of the combat. Fuck yeah, money well spent!

Someone else pays release price for the same game, and hates it. They think the story is predictable pap that relies too heavily on cutscenes, they think the dialogue is overly long and does nothing but get in the way of the action and they find the controls to be annoyingly sluggish. Man, what a miserable waste of $60+.

How is a reviewer supposed to account for this difference in taste?

Besides, if gamers just straight up distrusted reviews, why would they keep reading them? Wouldn't they just stop? Y'know, as opposed to hungrily gobbling them up and then getting angry with the ones that don't say what they want them to say?

Reviews are not read in search of purchasing advice.

Scoring systems arn't exactly brilliant either. The 'average' score seems to be around 70, rather then 50 where it should be. UK magazine PC Zone set it's scoring to just that so a 90 or more actually meant something (with a 'classic' award to go with it while 75/80-89 scores got 'must buy').

Y'know, I actually agree with this. I think the 6-10/10 scoring scale is a bit silly. Why have numbers under 6 if you're only going to use them for utterly broken games?

However, it's also yet another thing that nobody mentions in relation to a review that confirms their own opinions.

"Fuck yeah, I agree! Really good game! However, I think you should have given it a 6/10 instead of a 9/10. After all, scores like 9/10 should be reserved for timeless classics and this is more just a comfortably above average sort of game when you get right down to it."

Hm. Nope, never heard that one either.

"Fuck yeah, 9/10. Damn straight. My copy arrives tomorrow, can't wait. Gonna be totally epic!"

Oh yeah. Heard that one a lot.

 

[Something Amyss]

I have a theory, the folks who usually agree with reviews aren't very vocal about it. It may be an oddity, but humans seem less inclined to vocalize (through speech or text) their positive thoughts. Especially on the internet.

I have a theory. It could be bunnies.

But seriously, to an extent that's correct. The problem here going beyond simply "people voice dissent more readily than love" and turning into "anyone who disagrees with me is paid off or teh bias."

It's one thing to argue points and another thing to say "this guy's a big stupidhead for disagreeing with me." And the latter is effectively what we get. They insult a reviewer's skills, principles, integrity and opinions simply to reassure themselves that the game they like is, in fact, the second coming of Christ.

Along those lines, you point out that it's okay to point out typos and mistakes without being an asshat. Which I agree with (though some people are belligerent when they make the mistakes, and it's easier to be less civil with them). And this "the review was paid" thing comes off as little more than a self-righteous "how dare you not like what I like/like what I don't like? The nerve!"

I mean, I get it. The review has upset them for some reason, and I'm not even going to say "get over it" or whatever. But the people in question behave as though it was a personal attack ("This game is bad, and you're bad for liking it, PHIL!"), rather than a reviewer reviewing a game they may or may not have liked.

Last thought and plea to the community at large here: Is there any reason why we attack each other for our opinions other than what seems to be base territorial pissing matches? We as gamers, nerds, geeks, dorks, hobbyists, whatever you want to call yourself, should support each other's opinions whether we agree with them or not because our diversity of opinions, likes and dislikes, are what makes being part of this culture so great. We spend so much time breaking each other down that it seems we're less interested in moving the culture forward and bringing us together. I'm not saying we shouldn't have dissenting opinions, but we should at least have the decency to be a bit more civil towards each other. This culture, this community is still in its fledgling years, we're barely scratching the surface of what could be and if we spend our time fighting each other, even just with words, we're losing out on something else. I cannot explain what that something is, but each with negative post, each time I read something that has no intrinsic value other than to shout down another's opinon, I feel we lose as a whole.

But we're not a unified culture.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should be at each others' throats or anything, but the idea of pushing ourselves forward runs into problems in that "forward" isn't necessarily the same place for all of us. Almost all of those labels, like "nerd" or "geek" are catch-alls. At best, we might be able to agree upon some basic tenets, but even that's unlikely. Realistically, if you can get various tribes of geek to stop being territorial, you're going to win a Nobel peace prize because you'd be solving one of the oldest issues of human nature.

More to the point, though, even gamers don't all want the same things. And sometimes we're at cross purposes. I mean, there are different kinds of games out there for this exact reason. We may all like games, but we don't necessarily want the same things from games. Or the same types of games. Being a JRPG fan doesn't necessarily mean you will like shooters, or parkour games, or even WRPGs/SRPGs. Hell, being a shooter fan doesn't even guarantee you'll like all shooters. Maybe you only like twitch shooters, or only lik more sim-style shooters, or maybe you're one of those wretched people who enjoys Call of Duty. And maybe you like all of them and more, but there's no guarantee.

At the very basis of what we want, there is bound to be conflict. Conflicting issues. There's a glut of shooters on the market, and so there's going to be a divide between people who want more of them and people who want more of other things. This is worsened by the fact that fans of other genres, rightly or wrongly, feel jilted by the publishers who have now decided the "dudebro shooter" is the only thing of consequence. I could repeat the above, but with "Angry Birds" or "Facebook Game" as well.

And that's just gamers, and a very brief, inadequate, and glib coverage of it. Why can't the overall nerd community get along? Because there are literally thousands of those squabbles within each community. And when their powers combine, they form Voltron a rather divided base.

And now I've depressed myself.

BRB. Gonna go listen to a song about bunnies.