As I have probably stated before at some point, I have never been a fan of media critics. They are useful in a broader sense in terms of gauging the general popularity of something, but when it comes down to it, a critics opinion is simply that: an opinion. Just because they brand themselves as and like to think themselves as a critic does not mean that their opinion of something is of greater value than someone else's. Sure, they may have a much more educated analysis of something than the average person, but that is to be expected. It's their job. A job which, as the name suggests, purposefully draws upon the negative aspects of something with greater weight than those of merit. What is a critic if they do not criticise, afterall?
There is also the fact that certain critics already will have a point of view prior to reviewing something anyway. As we are all human, favouring certain genres of film, music or games is something we cannot avoid. Do you expect that say ... a critical review of a fighting game to be of significant quality if the reviewer is not a fighting game fan? What if you did want a less experienced reviewer to give their opinions? Should their negative or positive experiences have any sway over your own thoughts and opinions? The answer should be no. As a free willed conscious entity, you have the right to make your own decisions about things. As you should do whenever possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment