A review of Borderlands 2 written by Adam Najberg has caused controversy by gaining thousands of comments from disgruntled gamers unhappy at the negative views expressed in it. As if reviews are always and entirely factual.
I have some criticisms about the review myself: The constant references to Call Of Duty seem out of place as Borderlands 2 isn’t really comparable to that series; and the reviewer is clearly a casual, or mainstream, gamer, so not exactly the market Gearbox is aiming for with this game.
However, even those criticisms can be excused by the fact that this review is for The Wall Street Journal, a mainstream publication that is highly unlikely to be read by many hardcore gamers.
Regardless, the biggest takeaway from this whole thing is that some people seem to have forgotten that all reviews are based on personal opinion, with an individual bringing their personal likes and dislikes to the table. Which is why reading a range of reviews from different sources is crucial if you’re going to base a purchasing decision on the thoughts of others.
This is the reason Metacritic exists. It may not be perfect but it’s surely preferable than wasting time mocking an individual reviewer like Najberg.
Regardless, the biggest takeaway from this whole thing is that some people seem to have forgotten that all reviews are based on personal opinion, with an individual bringing their personal likes and dislikes to the table. Which is why reading a range of reviews from different sources is crucial if you’re going to base a purchasing decision on the thoughts of others.
I 100% understand people have an opinion, but out of all the reviews how many people said COD COD COD oh it wasnt like COD oh COD multiplayer is rich oH COD supports 18 BL2 has 4 Coop 18>4 then COD is better oh COD COD COD oh COD isnt on the box oh COD.
He even makes a remark about Skyrim being in other words too big. ARE YOU SERIOUS. I sometimes dont agree with remarks about what people say about games. Although I have NEVER seen such a poorly biased written review on any game in my life as a gamer.
The point is not wasting time mocking an individual. It was about defending a publisher brave enough to create something different than the mainstream garbage. The issue at hand is not one “casual” game reviewer, its the fact that it is being published in the WALL STREET JOURNAL. If it was on an inconsequential blog, okay. But to let a major publication slide with a completely erroneous red herring argument that could potentially effect the gaming industry is inexcusable.
This was not about fanboys, this was about calling out completely false comparisons from someone who is completely out of their league in review writing.