Funny.... video games are on the verge of making more money annually than the movie industry, and this clown wants us to follow in their foot steps?

Who could we get to do game reviews a'la Gene Siskel? :)

This is the web we are talking about. Wasn't it created so anyone could be heard? If you want an extremely professional review that everyone will be happy with reading then maybe you should look for a subscription based media outlet.

I feel that many (most?) gaming/tech websites would benefit from greater editorial leadership, direction and vision.

It seems like many of the reviews, here and elsewhere, are typed-up and plastered on the web without any consideration or proof-reading by an "editor"-style person.

As for the impartialities of the mac-gaming press, unfortunately it is absolutely rampant with apologists, people without any grasp of the big picture, and people in flat-out denial -- many of whom can't write particularly well (but that's what editors are for, right?). Sadly this trend seems to be growing... and enough with the thinly-veiled fluffy p.r. pieces already...

Many of the statements made by The Wall Street Journal have merit. It would bode well for IMG to listen to an journalist at a highly respected and well circulated publication with decades of experience writing reviews before immediately casting aside their opinions "cuz they ain't 733T gamerz like us."

How many times has the gaming industry been willing to criticize extended development on a game going on far beyond what was expected? How many times have we seen a detailed synopsis consisting of more than two lines? How many times does the Mac gaming industry leap praise upon a publisher for bringing a 3-4 year old title to the Mac and ignore the fact that most people won't buy it because it was a rather ignorant decision by the company to port something that old.

Stand up and take notice, IMG. Gamespot was willing to admit that the Wall Street Journal has many valid points and that much more challenging and fulfilling reviews need to be written. Why can't you the IMG Reporters leaping to defend their throne see that?

> The reviewers have nothing to do with the IMG store.
>They're independent writers who don't get compensated
>based on how many copies a game sells. Simple as that.

True. But I think a real danger is that in our dealings we get to know the people who develop and publish these games, and have sympathy with them.

Granted we wouldn't be doing them a favor by letting them put out something flawed without saying anything, since their name brand is very important to them. And of course we have a responsibility to our readers. It's just something we have to be on guard against.

There are a lot of crappy movie reviews out there as well. No matter how bad a film is, the studio can always find someone to quote in the print ads as saying "Uproarously funny! A film the whole family can enjoy!" So it's a bit silly for the WSJ to hold that up as something game reviewers should aspire to. The onlpy point I'll conceded is that, just as many games are targetted too narrowly, the reviews are targetted to an equally narrow audience. But what would the point be of having a review that can be read by the average layperson if the game itself isn't aimed to the average layperson? And if you take a game like The Sims or Wheel of Fortune, aren't you going to be able to find reviews of them written for non-hardcore gamers? I'm not quite sure what the WSJ was thinking. While they are at it, why don't they complain that flight-sim reviews are just "too technical and obsessed with minutia?"

> IMG, how do you keep your impartiality in your reviews knowing that it could affect the sales of your games?

Answer: The reviewers have nothing to do with the IMG store. They're independent writers who don't get compensated based on how many copies a game sells. Simple as that.

I haven't read the Wall Street article or the Gamespot article, but I do respect most game reviews I read and wouldn't say that movie reviews are much better.

IMG, however, has a strange relationship with game companies in that not only do they advertise games on their site (like everyone else, but Consumer Reports), but they also sell the games. It must be tough to give a bad review to a game you're trying to sell, but they do give games they sell bad reviews sometimes.

IMG, how do you keep your impartiality in your reviews knowing that it could affect the sales of your games?

Wallstreet Journal should stick to wall street instead of trying to play smart in IT.
They have written alot of BS about Apple and microsoft in the past...