It was due to Kieron Gillen's manifesto that the term New Game Journalism (shortened to NGJ to make it sound more like a drug) was coined and has been used as a term for game journalism. The term has only been around for a few years, but the actual purpose of it, has been around for many years more. It holds influence over gamers, who keep an eye on current events through websites, and magazines.
The issue that anyone has to face when reading/listening/watching something, whether it being on the news, online, in a magazine, from a friend's mouth, is that it is all coming from a biased source. Certain people validate their source, to see if it is truth worthy or collect more information on the subject before coming to their own conclusion over it. This is why reviews are such a hit with sites such as Amazon and the game magazines.
The ranking system is a simple system that anyone can understand, and it helps grab people's attention on what the industry has claimed to be their best work. When you're looking for an opinion on what is good, you tend to turn to an expert. They use this to their advantage, which anyone would do in that situation. Personally, I think the ranking system, is outdated. I have never paid any attention to it, and neither have any of my friends. I don't think any of us will ever really pay much attention to them, we tend to go off one another's words, or watching actual game play than a ranking system.
Despite it being biased, game reviews can become quite bland if it does not have the quirky comments from the writer and everyone likes to feel that they are on a personal level with someone. The writers give the game reviews a kind of charm, which makes it pleasing to read. It adds character overall, which captures the reader's attention which is the main aim. The topic is enough for someone to pick it up, but it is the writing that makes them continue to read the article past the opening paragraph. The reviews could be quite bland, but it's because the writers put their personality in to it, that it shows that this is also their passion. Obviously, there is a much need for balance to make it work.
If a person is a NGJ and is writing for a magazine, they are paid to promote the game whilst making it sound like their opinion. That's their job, to promote the games and the console. It's the companies like Nintendo that are paying their wages, to sell the game, but to keep it fresh.
For an example, for my fmp in my final year at college, I decided to focuse on the Legend of Zelda. Luckily for me, it was coming up to the yet another re-release of the Ocarina of Time and the official Nintendo magazine had eight page spreads saying the same identical thing about it for a solid four months at least. Legend of Zelda is one of the most popular game series, thus being a big selling point all over.
However, on the other side, they are stressed for time, with a magazine coming out monthly (some weekly), they need to keep the material fresh and are meeting constant deadlines that could make the entire magazine fall apart for that one month. When one issue is completed, they are faced with another, to go through the same exact circus all over again. As I have stated earlier, there is a much needed balance, to make it not seem completely fake, to keep the interest and to sell the game whilst voicing their own opinion in a professional manner. With this note, I agree with Kieron Gillen's manifesto, and that we need to look at it from different sides and angles before confirming that a review is reliable.
At the end of the day, it is the gamer, and their experience with that game that makes them think "damn, that game was brilliant" rather than what review that person had read before buying the game, what the review claimed and whether it got a high enough score in one of the official gamer magazines.
Listening to: The Tron soundtrack.
