Just finished Leon chapter 4, and with my noodling around with Mercs yesterday, I've probably clocked about eight hours in with the game. Loving it? Yeah...but more in the sense of someone who still loves their funny uncle who has run out of funny things to say.

The new mechanics and controls didn't take long to grow on me, and they serve the Mercenaries portion of the game amazingly well. Mercs is now a lot more challenging for me because there's so much I need to learn anew. The campaign is also surprisingly challenging for an RE vet, though there are a lot of cheap deaths. I'm not just talking about scripted stuff, either, though there were instances when scripted enemy grapples lopped off health -- not cool with that, really.

The puzzles are a complete embarrassment. Perhaps the worst element of this game is the waypoint marker that stays onscreen pretty much throughout the entire game. It basically solves the already flimsy puzzles for you and sucks the life out of exploration. RE4 got it perfect. It gave you a map with an indicator that led you in the right direction but didn't hold your hand through the actual puzzles. Of course, the early games had the most interesting puzzles, and RE6 should have just opted out altogether, since what's here is an insult.

The bosses are decent, but not terribly challenging or interesting (gameplay-wise). The story during the early part of Leon's campaign -- the build up -- was excellent, but it seems to fall apart quickly toward the end, with terrible plot devices and dialogue.

So far, it doesn't sound all that great, does it? But I am actually enjoying the moment-to-moment gameplay -- the shooting, melee, scrounging around for loot and all that. And as perversely stupid as the story is, I can't help wanting to see where the hell it all winds up.

I've still got Chris and Jake's entire campaigns to go, and honestly, I'm looking forward to them. Leon's was supposed to be the closest thing to old-school RE we get with this game, but RE6 is probably better off without any of that because its design is so out of touch with survival horror. I've also watched a bit of Jake's campaign, and it looks the most polished in terms of gameplay design. That giant Nemesis-looking dude promises a much more interesting ride than Leon's story.

Don't get me wrong, Leon's campaign started out really enjoyable, but it's settled into a fairly shallow action romp right now. We'll see how it all wraps up, though...

I've been gaming since the NES first came out, where I had four games, tops, and my parents made me use my allowance to pay off the debt of the system itself. In those days, you bought a cartridge, popped it into your system and played until your sight began to suffer, then started the process anew the following day. Nowadays, games are so very different, I often look back to that time and miss the simplicity of it. Today we have different consoles with different offerings and the graphical output of the systems is truly mind-blowing. Despite all that, the game itself is still very much a self-enclosed product, save for the now prevalent DLC.

Downloadable Content will be the lightning rod to any gaming discussion. Do you love it or do you hate it? I think its clear that my inclination leans one way, but that doesnt mean I condemn it, hardly. What people want to do with their money is their business, as I believe should be true in other ways, but not an appropriate sidebar to this discussion. If you want to pay an extra $15 or more for an extra mission in a game, then go right ahead. The question still remains do the gaming companies sell an incomplete product or just enhance something you already bought.

Under no circumstances is DLC required to complete a game. That has remained true throughout this evolution of content. When I buy a game, I can play the game from start to finish and enjoy the full experience as I paid for it. Now, in an effort to create a new visit to a completed game, gaming companies have added pieces of their story in small chunks, not quite a stand-alone game, but enough to get people to pay a premium to access them in advance, like Rockstars passes, or an a la carte option.

What is all the fuss about? I find myself often surprised at how vehement fans (read fanboys/girls) get when discussing this topic. It is one of the more polarising topics in gaming. Is the gaming company selling us an incomplete product? Are they forcing loyal gamers to pay more to play every piece of the game? My short answer: no. My long answer: yes, sort of.

The fact of the matter is gaming is a massive, profitable industry. When the XBOX and Playstation really started duelling for gamer money, I think it became clear to the industry that there was more money out there that could be tapped, and they have capitalised on it perfectly. I believe, in their minds, they are giving us more, but having us pay for that extra piece. Therein lies the catch. You get to pay $60 for a full game, but if you want anymore, you can pay in instalments, $10-$15 every few months until the creators have no more ideas to sell. I won't even dare to add the 'buy game new vs. wait until the game of the year edition' comes out with all the DLC, because I don't have the energy.

I have only ever bought DLC once, and to me this is the heart of the discussion. I loved Deus Ex Human Revolution. It came out last summer and it blew me away. I'm terrible at games played from a first person perspective, I thought I'd be awful at it and hate it. But I surprised myself by falling in love with the colours and aura that permeated the game. Quite frankly, I never wanted to stop playing it. When I finally got to the end, I didn't feel let down, as many others were, but enjoyed the ride for what it was. DLC was announced soon after the game released, and I never committed one way or the other. But when the price dropped on it, I bought it. And that is where I stand.

DLC is a great addition, but I am in the part of the population that doesn't want to pay for the extra content. I didn't feel jilted that it hadn't been included, but I recognised that it was a ploy for the gaming industry to suck up a few more of my hard-earned dollars. Does that make it wrong? No, it was my choice to partake in it or not. To this day there are dozens of Arcade games on XBOX live and Playstation Network that I don't buy because I don't want to spend the money. For me, a larger part of the argument has to do with not having an actual, physical game, but that is also a topic for another discussion.

Whether you hate it or love it, DLC isnt going anywhere. The concept has been too fruitful and as with any new technology, given enough time and support, it will insinuate itself into our lives on a permanent basis.

Like most things in life,DLC for gaming can be used in a good way or in a bad way.

First I'd like to talk about how DLC can be used in a bad way.

Having to use DLC to get a proper ending for Mass Effect 3.

Many people have put more than 100 hours of playing time into the Mass Effect series and a much loved feature of the Mass Effect series is how player choices carry over into the next game.Bioware said the decisions the player makes will have a big effect on the game's ending.

However,Mass Effect 3's character endings are all generic and they don't give the story closure and have plot holes and the narrative for the endings seems rushed.

Later on,Bioware released DLC to give the player a more meaningful ending for Mass Effect 3 but you have to download it and it's ending still lacked heart.

DLC giving you a competitive advantage online

In certain games(especially shooters)people who purchase DLC can use more advanced weapons that other players who don't purchase the DLC cannot.

Needing to purchase online pass code for prewowned or borrowed games.

Some Playstation 3 games require an online pass in order to play them and even though Playstation 3 games that require an online pass in order to be played online come with a free online pass,the pass can be only used for one acccount so if you buy a game that requires an online pass to play it online and the game is preowned or if you borrow that game from a friend and the previous owner/your friend has already used the online pass,you'll need to pay money to download a new code for an online pass(which is technically DLC).

Now,I'll talk about good DLC that's sold at a questionable price

Heavy Rain is one of the best games I've played from this generation and a prologue for it named Heavy Rain Chronicles Episode 1: The Taxidermist was released which focuses on one of it's characters named Madison Paige.EP1 The Taxidermist has creepy and very psychological thrilling moments just like in the main Heavy Rain game but it's extremely short(taking only 15 minutes to reach the end)and even though it has 5 endings you can see all the endings in 30 minutes and it was priced at 5$.

I like some of the DLC character costumes for Street Fighter 4 but I don't want to pay money for them.

Other ways DLC can be good but overpriced

DLC can add more game time to our favorite games or give us new weapons to use,new characters etc. to freshen up the gaming experience but often we have to pay for them and sometimes the new levels/missions are very short and often DLC is nearly the same price as a full game.For example,The DLC for Assassin's Creed 2 named Battle for Forli is very short(less than 1 hour) and cost me nearly 1/2 the price of what I paid for Assassin's Creed 2.

Good DLC that's free

Certain DLC for Skyrim can make it's graphics better and improve it's inventory system and give the player new spells etc.Skyrim's graphics are already nice to begin with but with a free patch you can make them even better.

More than 10 years ago when I played Need for Speed 3 on PC,I downloaded new cars for free and it added a bit more life to the game because I could try out the new cars.

Some patches for games can fix or reduce bugs and can be downloaded for free.

DLC that's good and worth the money

GTA IV's DLC named ''The Ballard of Gay Tony'' was priced at roughly 20$ at the time of it's release and can add more than 10 hours of gameplay and adds a nice nightlife atmosphere with nightclub themed minigames and a new interesting character/story elements.

How I think DLC should be used.

I purchased Street Fighter 4 not long after it was released,but afterwards Super Street Fighter 4 was released with new characters/environments.I think Capcom should have given people who purchased Street Fighter 4 the option to download the new Super Street Fighter 4 characters/environments for free because why should people who bought Street Fighter 4 not long after it was released and whom paid full price for Street Fighter 4 get the bad end of the deal?

If developers want us to pay money for DLC,they shouldn't make it over priced(such as charging 5$ for something you can complete in 30 minutes)and if they want us to pay money for it they should make it worth the money such as how The Ballard of Gay Tony is or was roughly 20$ when it was first released but it was more than 10 hours long and brought new interesting characters/storyline and new weapons,new missions and fun gameplay.If developers want to sell DLC that can be completed in 30 minutes they should charge 1$ but not 5$.

Overall

DLC can be good or bad depending on how it's used.Greedy developers might use it as a way to make easy money or it can make a gaming experience better but even good DLC can be overpriced but some good DLC is free or worth the money.

Like most of us our favorite games sometimes need a little thing or two to expand our replayability. In this case I chose the DLC for Mass Effect as an example of why one can make the achievements in the game tedious and make you hte it! I am talking about the Pinncale Statiom DLC that is not included when you purchase the Platinum version of Mass Effect. Bringing Down the Sky is a excellent add on which made playing Mass Effect more epic than it already is, but Pinnacle Station didn't.

Here in Pinnacle Station when you become a Spectre, you get an invitation to try out these battle simulations on this station. At first i thought oh cool a new way to improve my shooting skills and performnce to clear out bandits holds and defet enemies quicker. When you start there four types of missions and two are to do them in. The objectives are explained and that no real grenades or something like that which make you choose who you want on your team to help clear these.

The thing is, the enemy respawning in there is so dumb and it makes you fail these missions on purpose I swear. Also sometimes when you have one enemy to go and your time is perfect, the enemy appears in a rock or wall. They don't move and you end up wasting time trying to either lurre them our or trying to find the target to shoot them. Another thing is that the enemies are geth type. I mean a different variety would be good like batarians or a turian, but no it' geth since they are a big threat.

So even if you beat all 12 scenarios, there is one left and you get a retirement home as a prize? My question is does it carry on to Mass Effect 2 and 3? Also with the reapers how would you enjoy it as you sip some tea and watch the beautiful view. " What a nice retirement home I won, the view of the stars, the peaceful feeling and a reaper slowly foating by, wait a reaper?!" I figured besides an achievement there would a trophy in your cabin or a medal or a perk or some rare armor to wear in the final fight. So in conclusion some gmes don't need a clunky, glitchy DLC to mar the beauty of it unless it is done right and the price for it is reasonable.

Cover Shot

I should start by saying that product value is ultimately a form of perception. It is different from person to person, and there are no industrial standards whatsoever for the empirical measurement of value - even for products other than video games. In other words, value is subjective, and it would be rare indeed for everyone to see eye-to-eye on this matter.

Now, on to the subject matter of DLC.

---------------------

FORMERLY EXPANSION PACKS

The way I see it, DLC packages are the evolution of expansion packs of yore. They do practically do the same thing: add content to an existing game, albeit with an asking price. Previously, expansion packs are sold as physical packages that are quite useless without the original - sometimes even the disc from the original package is needed (and not just the installation of the original game), if the installer has some particularly irksome copy protection measures.

DLC has not changed this by much.

At least ugly and vague checklists are gone from the range of promotion methods for DLCs.

In other words, DLC packages still need the original game to play (apparently), and therefore, if there is any value to be seen, it can only be seen by those who already have licenses for the original game packages.

Anybody else may just see it as nickel-and-diming of those who have the licenses.

---------------------

DLC MUST ADDS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THERE

Regardless of whether these "additions" are seen as convincing additions or ripping out of content from the original package, they are still technically additions to the basic package for the game. By the same note, this must be what DLC does - technically adding something to the existing package.

In other words, DLC packages that unlock what is already there in the existing package are of very questionable value indeed. Capcom, as a particular example of a game-maker that makes DLCs, could not adhere to this technical view of DLC.

Capcom deserves all bashing that comes it way.

Of about the same contention is content that is believed to have been intended for the original package, but apparently is not there in any way but had been packaged as DLC. This belief arises from the perception that the content that the DLC brings could have been integrated into the original package in such a manner that they would not have seemed like an expansion, i.e. they appear to very much belong to the original package and would not seem out of place.

One of the games that may have this issue is the first Dragon Age game and its Stone Prisoner DLC. Shale is a surprisingly well-conceived character, with many lines and interjections throughout the game, even at the very beginning. Personally, I have a very strong impression that Shale was intended to be part of the vanilla package of the game (similar to how HK-47 was for Knights of the Old Republic, who is thought to be the inspiration for Shale's character designs).

Guess the odd one out.

Other than the disjointed segue for the quest that introduces Shale, Shale seemed to fit into the vanilla package of Dragon Age: Origins very well - suspiciously well.

---------------------

FREE IS THE BEST WORTH

Expansion packs of yore had the excuse of having to be packaged and shipped over to customers, thus ever requiring the consumer to pay for them. DLC does not have the excuse of having to be physically packaged.

Of course, one can argue that there are development costs as well as hosting and distribution fees charged by their digital distribution partners to be covered. But here are the caveats: when will development costs be broken even, and what if there are no substantial fees to be paid on a gradual basis?

The segment to the right of the break-even point is just too lucrative for DLC makers.

The only ones who would know are the game-makers and their distribution partners of course, but what is going to stop game-makers and their distributors from continuing to charge even after the development and distribution costs of the DLC have been broken even? The cost breakdowns are opaque to consumers, who won't know where their money would be going to if they buy them.

The Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 DLC packages come to mind, such as Resurgence, which is still US$15, despite having being around for a couple of years.

Therefore, the worth of a DLC package will always be questionable and never certain, whatever the price, as long as there is one and the decisions that went into its pricing is kept private and unknown to the consumer.

Free DLC, on the other hand, has a much less questionable worth. Of course, one can argue that the game-makers and digital distributors may incur losses from this, but it will be hard to argue that 'free' is not the best value that a customer can have for a DLC package.

---------------------

AND NOW - PLEASE AFFORD ME SOME GRIPING

No, I am not going to gripe about how DLCs are evil and such. In fact, I am quite receptive of DLC - especially if they are free. Also, do keep in mind what I have said about value being a subjective perception.

Instead, what I will gripe about is how indie game-makers themselves are warming up to premium DLC packages. Considering that they are not supposed to be like corporate game-makers, I find it very disappointing that some of them are doing the same thing that the latter are doing, only with lower prices.

Trendy Entertainment is one of the worst of them.

Of course, most of them offer free content updates, but not all of them kept doing so - Edmund McMillen comes to mind as a disappointing example for having attached a price tag on Wrath of the Lamb, which is a DLC for Binding of Isaac.

I don't like DLC very much, but I do believe that it is a convenient way of bringing content updates to games and increasing their value. I can only wish that game-makers would consider adding more value to customers than always trying to cover costs - that's just one step away from seeing customers as just mere sources of income.

Also, as I have said before in earlier blog posts of mine, if I don't like what a game-maker is doing, I don't peruse their products - simple as that.

Went ahead and ordered a copy from Wallyworld, and it should arrive next Friday (hate the wait). Honestly, I hadn't been anticipating its release (much like with Dark Souls), but mprezzy (through a recent blog) reminded me it was out. I was excited by the announcement of it a while back, but I tend to forget about these things, since these big games are hyped for so long before they actually come out.

Anyway, the reviews didn't scare me off. If anything, they piqued my curiosity. Call me morbid, but that's often how I respond to the big, AAA titles. If they get panned and they're a premise I'm already interested in, I'm that much more curious to see what's what. And though I never really stopped to think about it, I'm actually a pretty huge RE fan. Every time a game for the series comes out, I'm pretty much there, including the 3DS Mercs game. I did pass on ORC, though, as even in the remotest sense, I have trouble viewing it as an RE game. Looks like DLC for SOCOM if you ask me.

The expression on Helena's face (woman on left) was pretty much my response to some of the reviews for RE6. I was surprised, to be honest. I mean, everyone's favorite RE protagonist, Leon, was back in action. So, I downloaded the demo, which made me feel less confident about the game's quality. Then, I played some more, fooled around with the huge number of mechanics, and I realized: Capcom married Onimusha and Godhand and they had a Resident Evil story as offspring. I kinda got massively interested all of sudden.

But that's not completely accurate. After watching more walkthrough footage than I probably should have for someone not wanting to spoil the entire experience, I realize there's still something inherently Resident Evil about this game. Either way, I can't wait to sink my teeth into the full experience. I love the RE universe, and if I can adjust to the tank controls of the older games, I think I can overcome whatever technical changes this game throws at me. Love the idea of the skill system, and more Mercs? Oh yeah...

Hit me up next weekend if you want to co-op some of the game with me.

-GD

And somewhere out there a math teacher is crying herself to sleep....

OK, so, 2+9=11. 11-7=4. 5y*4=20y. And we figure y is .5.... So y didn't Resident Evil 6 score a 10!?

More often than not, when cruising through the various interconnected tubes on the information highway I end up at a game review. Don't ask me how. I'll be working from the office and find myself quickly reading a game review. I'll be at home reading about the NBA and than all of a sudden, out of nowhere, I'm halfway through a Torchlight II review. Listening to a lecture at school, and you guessed it, an XCOM review. It just happens. And what I tend to always ignore when reading those reviews are the numbers that are attached to them. The bold, multi-colored, fancy-font, giant numbers that are accompanied with a fancy phrase like "One of the greatest ever!" or "If you aren't playing this you're missing out on one of the greatest ever!" and sometimes even "Editor's Choice!!!! One of the greatest ever!!!" mean little to me. But it seems like far more people are interested in those numbers with the mini little catch-phrases.

And God forbid that a game scores lower than people expected, you'll see the comments "WHAT!? RESIDENT EVIL! FREAKING RESIDENT EVIL GOT A 4.5!?" (too soon? We can interchange it with Twilight Princess and its 8.8, because those were hilarious times). Not to mention the personal attacks against the reviewer. It's a difficult and often straining concept, but we don't all like the same things. And some of us have better taste than the rest of the rabble out there, so there's also that to consider.

But if there were no numbers.... you know, they'd have like the same review. (LOL apostrophe)

First of all, it helps to know what a review is for: informing consumers. Someone is paid to spend time with a product and say whether it's worth owning/using that product. In gaming it's a different mentality: reviews are worthless, scores are bragging rights and people need their egos to be boosted by them. I don't know, maybe people get a rush from seeing a game they wanted score favorably. Good for them (loooosers), people are entitled to be made happy by whatever they want (unless I say they can't, in which case, too bad for them).

People become so focused on the numbers attached that they don't even read the review anymore. Even publishers and analysts are so focused on these numbers that they guage their success based on Metacritic scores. It's just sad. Meanwhile, some sites are trying to not emphasis the numbers nearly as much, like GameSpy and 1up with their 5 star/letter scale rating systems. But then you have IGN and their 100 point scale, with a brightly colored red section that takes up half the review page. I'm sorry if I don't see a noticable difference between a 9.4 and 9.2. I'm definitely not sorry for calling this rating system the stupidest possible one to use.

Huh.... what was this game about again? Oh hey, look at that little quote about no one taking the gaming industry seriously. Too funny! So.... what was this game about again?

The review says it all. The words are there, it can praise the graphics and lament the QTE events. It can praise the gameplay and moan about the cringe-worthy dialogue. It can praise the setting and bash the incomprehensible narrative. It can praise (I'm big on the word praise) the concept and rail on the busted controls. The words say everything you need to know. But people won't pay attention to them, they'll focus on the number floating near the words, bright and more often than not in your face.

But it isn't just the focus on the scores, it's the misunderstanding of what a score can mean. Back in early 2010 I reviewed Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and described it as a below-average game. I rated it a 4.5. The comments (from many people I didn't even know) were focused on that score. "Dude I know you didn't like it, but a 4.5 is too harsh, maybe like a 7 at least geez." Newsflash, below average means below 5.0. Over the years I made it a habit to post my reviews without the scores, though using GameSpot's review method means people can still see it, particularly if they decide to recommend it (which I always appreciate), but the focus should never be on that number. The words have it all. And certainly, it's fun to rate the games you have played to leave behind a sort of record of the games you have come across in your life, but the words really do have it all.

Maybe professional reviews need to do away with the traditional rating systems. Maybe the games should simply be rated on a play/don't play basis and let readers decide for themselves what's worth playing. Numbers have their place in my bank account, but when it comes to understanding what's worth playing and what isn't, the words take precedence. I can tell you this much, when my aunt asks me "hey, is that new Star Wars game worth buying for Andrew?" I don't respond with "8.5."

Technically, this is in participating with the latest GS Chalk Talk, but for me personally, it's an excuse to ramble on about how I approach writing a review. Like most things I write about, I like to offer a brief introduction to the topic. Since we're talking shop about reviews, I'll begin with the most important task: playing the game.

You'd be surprised how few reviewers give a game enough of their time. Heck, to be perfectly candid, I've worked for sites that have made it clear I am only required to play through an hour or two of a game before moving on to writing up my critique.

To be fair, as of late, I have been focused on iOS titles and Facebook games, and they actually require little more, if that, than an hour of play to fully evaluate. But generally speaking, I like to cover my a** and know what I'm talking about. There have been occasions where I haven't completely finished a campaign, but I always try to make it my business to fully discover all the ins & outs of a particular game.

This, of course, is referring strictly to my past professional (freelance) reviews. When it comes to reader reviews, I feel a player has the right to chime in at any point in their progress, so long as they intend to offer something of meaning to the community and how it relates to a game.

Once I'm done running a game through its paces -- and hopefully I've had some fun with it -- I like to focus on introducing the game, usually by way of a brief tour of said genre and/or the publisher/developer who has created the title. But this isn't a set pattern. I'll discuss anything relevant. I want to keep things brief, however, and by my second paragraph, I'm usually on to a description of the game's presentation and/or story.

After setting up some basics regarding what the player can expect in terms of progression, I tend to let the rest come naturally. I discuss whatever comes to mind, and that's usually the key elements of a game that have impacted me the most, whether it be the controls, leveling system, visuals, story, etc.

The one thing I try not to do is overstay my welcome. I know folks are after the meat, and once I've covered the gameplay, I usually wrap up by covering the visuals and audio. There are rare cases where graphics and such demand a bit more focus, but typically you know I'm headed for home around this time.

At which point I bring the whole thing full circle round, summing up what I've expanded upon earlier and giving a nod as to whether I think the game's worth your time and money. Sometimes, I have to leave all of the decision making up to you, expounding on the pluses and minuses without clearly settling one way or the other.

And that's pretty much my review process. A GS buddy I knew from the NSider forums landed me my first reviewing gig, and after finding my feet, I've been approaching it this way pretty much ever since. Sometimes my reviews read like Shakespeare, sometimes they read like ****. In either case, I always try to do my best to inform and offer something entertaining to read. The score always represents that which I cannot put into words.

Video game reviews are important because whether we agree with a review or not,they give us a general idea of what a game is like and without them it would be much harder to decide which games we should buy.

Much of the gaming community trusts reviews done by ''professional reviewers'' who work for Gamespot,IGN,Game Informer etc. because much of the gaming community think game professional reviewers are experts and have the best opinions on whether a game is good or not.However,reviews done by professional game reviewers are still largely based on their opinions and if a Gamespot staff member reviews a game and says they don't like the game's story or gameplay,it doesn't make it a fact the game has a bad story or bad gameplay.One of my Gamespot friends told me he met a professional game reviewer who doesn't like JRPGs and the person is a talented writer and can write well-written articles/reviews but he has given negative reviews to JRPGs because he doesn't like JRPGs.Just because he's a professional reviewer and talented writer does it make his opinions of JRPGs facts? Also,my friend told me that guy(the talented writer) played a JRPG named White Knight Chronicles and he sucked at it a lot because he kept dying and he used a fire spell against an enemy named a ''Fire Dragon'' (people who play JRPGs a lot would know most of the time using an elemental spell against an enemy that's based on the same element will heal the enemy).Afterwards he gave White Knight Chronicles a low score.Even though he's a talented writer,would you trust this guy's reviews of JRPGs?

This guy might be a good writer,but does it mean you will feel the same way about a game that he does?

I've also seen an Australian video game magazine review of a Madden NFL game,but instead of explaining whether they thought that Madden NFL game did a good job or giving the player a realistic or fun NFL experience or not,the reviewers just talked about why they don't like American football and gave that game a low score.

Even though some of Gamespot's staff may have played thousands of games in which they can used to draw comparisons and standards between games and how games should be,in the end their reviews are still based on their own personal opinions and not facts.

A prime example is how one of Gamespot's staff members reviewed a game named NieR and gave it a score of 5.0 and said it's story is not interesting until late in the game and it's music is overbearing.But,many Gamespot members who've played NieR love NieR and they've said they love NieR's story and think of it's story as very emotional and think NieR's music is beautiful and some people even downloaded NieR's music because they like to listen to it.This is why many player reviews of NieR(reviews done by Gamespot members)say NieR is a great game and those people gave NieR a high score.

This is why many people place big importance on player reviews(reviews done by normal everyday people).If a Gamespot staff member says in his review that a game isn't good but a majority of player reviews say the game is good,it will let people know there's many people who think that particular game is good despite the fact that Gamespot staff member says it isnt'.

I think professional game reviewers are helpful nonetheless because many people are casual gamers or don't always keep up to date with the gaming world and if they want to at least get a general idea of what a game is like,they can read an in-depth and properly written review from Gamespot because many player reviews don't address every area of the game (story,gameplay,graphics,music,replayability)or can be annoying to read due to bad grammar.

From a personal point of view,I choose to buy NieR because it received many positive player reviews and I found it for a cheap price and NieR turned out to be one of my favorite games from this generation as well as one of my favorite games of all time.If it had only listened to VanOrd's review,it would have missed out on discovering what is one of my favorite games of all time,so this shows why player reviews are imporant.However,some people only listen to what professional game reviewers say and if they saw VanOrd gave NieR a score of 5.0 and read some of the negative things he said about NieR,they wouldn't want to play NieR.

That brings me to my next point,I've seen many people saying they won't buy a game that receives a score of less than 8.0 from Gamespot.Some people think just because Final Fantasy XIII-2 received a score of only 7.5 by Gamespot it means FFXIII-2 is a bad game,when in fact,a score of 7.5 is a good score,but the reviewer just didn't that the game was amazing,but it's his opinion.Gamespot constantly give Halo and Call of Duty games very high scores but I'm not a big fan of those games and even though Gamespot gave Halo 2 a score of 9.4,Halo 3 and Halo Reach a 9.5 and Call of Duty games score around the 8.5-9.0 range,does it mean everyone is going to like those games? No it doesn't.Gamespot gave Lost Odyssey and Final Fantasy XIII-2 a score of 7.5 and they're both amongst my favorite games from this generation.

However,Halo and Call of Duty games sell very well,and part of the reason is those games constantly get high scores from professional reviewers(as well as lots of advertisement for those games).

I remember years ago when I was in a video game store,a staff member said ''Gears of War is a great game because Gamespot gave it a score of 9.6'' even before he had played the game.

Demographics come into the equation too.Many Japanese gamers have a different taste to western gamers.Many Japanese gamers love JRPGs and like games with anime influenced visuals and many Japanese gamers like visual novels,but FPS games are not as popular in Japan as they are in the West.Many Japanese games use male characters that have have ''emo'' or ''feminine'' features because in certain Asian countries,feminine features on a man are considered attractive.Where on the otherhand,western male characters tend to be more muscular or badass.In Japanese games,many of the female characters have a cute,bubbly personality which is common for women in Asian countries.But in many western games,female characters usually act more serious.My point is,you can't expect Japanaese people who've grown up and whom have lived in a country with their own distinctive cultural aspects to like a FPS game just because a western developer gave it a positive review and a high score.

A typical western video game character named Marcus Fenix

A Japanese video game character named Cloud Strife

I think people should listen to reviews done by both professional reviewers as well as player reviews because you shouldn't let the opinions of one person persuade or dissuade you when you're deciding whether to try a game or not.I'm a big JRPG fan but I decided not to play a JRPG named Unlimited Saga because it's received many negative reviews from professional reviewers as well as from many player reviews and this is an example of how I think game reviews have stopped me wasting my money/time on what most likely will be a game I won't enjoy.But like I said with my NieR example,if a game gets a negative review from a professional reviewer but lots of positive reviews from player reviewers and it's from a genre you enjoy playing,you should give the game a try,especially if you find it for cheap.