Negative reviews are far more popular than positive ones. They're better, funnier, and more interesting. A positive or simply contemplative review only earns the attention of a gamer who specifically wants to know about that game, at least online. Genuinely fun reviews like those of X-Play or Zero Punctuation get attention no matter what the subject game is, because they function as entertainment on their own. I don't know if it's just the nature of communication or humor or what, but there simply isn't a way to be funny and positive after you've already used the word "orgasm". Zero Punctuation and The Angry Video Game Nerd have exploited this for their benefit, by publicly hating nearly every game they review for maximum traffic and profit. This isn't reprehensible, it's really just good fun, but there almost needs to be a different term for these pieces than "review".
There is nothing more irritating to a fan of a game than to see one of these types of reviews point out all that game's flaws as though they were absolutely fatal, then turn around and worship a game like Portal or Pixeljunk Eden as though they were brilliant diamonds filled with wisdom given unto us by God. Metal Gear Solid has long cutscenes that dump information on you and expect you to sort it all out, presumably while you are back to actually playing the game. Halo is somewhat bland and uninspired as a single player shooter, and its previously unbeatable multiplayer is now basic for the industry. Assassin's Creed is repetitive and not the most user-friendly with its layout. These great games have flaws that this sort of review consider to outweigh all of a game's good points, which generates hate mail of unprecedented levels. But when a reviewer like Croshaw decides to actually praise a game, the public becomes completely uninterested. He noted during his Portal review that he "know[s] it's not very funny to love a game." This makes their reviews less credible, but they're not the only ones.
Big websites like Gamespot and 1up have the opposite problem. Their reviews aren't credible because they depend on their relationships with game companies to make money, rather than public interest. Therefore, reviews are theoretically slanted positive to please the companies that send them review copies and advertise with their site. This created a huge controversy after Jeff Gerstmann was fired for his very negative review of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. Eidos has put lots of money into advertising for Gamespot, but this review made them sour and start to pull advertising money, so Gamespot fired Gerstmann to make up for it. It is difficult to find reviews that can claim to have no cause for bias, so these negative, entertaining reviews cannot be entirely faulted for having their own flaw.
Overall, it's fine that these negative reviews exist. They can almost serve as satire of games that are otherwise universally considered to be good. The problem arises with calling them reviews, when they serve a different purpose from an actual video game review. Their primary purpose is to entertain, (whether or not they infuriate fans) and the actual purpose of informing the public as to the quality of a game is secondary at best. People, including fans, should realize what reviews like Zero Punctuation are and just let them be, because they inevitably make fun of everything anybody loves. They don't necessarily hate games, it's just their job.
There is nothing more irritating to a fan of a game than to see one of these types of reviews point out all that game's flaws as though they were absolutely fatal, then turn around and worship a game like Portal or Pixeljunk Eden as though they were brilliant diamonds filled with wisdom given unto us by God. Metal Gear Solid has long cutscenes that dump information on you and expect you to sort it all out, presumably while you are back to actually playing the game. Halo is somewhat bland and uninspired as a single player shooter, and its previously unbeatable multiplayer is now basic for the industry. Assassin's Creed is repetitive and not the most user-friendly with its layout. These great games have flaws that this sort of review consider to outweigh all of a game's good points, which generates hate mail of unprecedented levels. But when a reviewer like Croshaw decides to actually praise a game, the public becomes completely uninterested. He noted during his Portal review that he "know[s] it's not very funny to love a game." This makes their reviews less credible, but they're not the only ones.
Big websites like Gamespot and 1up have the opposite problem. Their reviews aren't credible because they depend on their relationships with game companies to make money, rather than public interest. Therefore, reviews are theoretically slanted positive to please the companies that send them review copies and advertise with their site. This created a huge controversy after Jeff Gerstmann was fired for his very negative review of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. Eidos has put lots of money into advertising for Gamespot, but this review made them sour and start to pull advertising money, so Gamespot fired Gerstmann to make up for it. It is difficult to find reviews that can claim to have no cause for bias, so these negative, entertaining reviews cannot be entirely faulted for having their own flaw.
Overall, it's fine that these negative reviews exist. They can almost serve as satire of games that are otherwise universally considered to be good. The problem arises with calling them reviews, when they serve a different purpose from an actual video game review. Their primary purpose is to entertain, (whether or not they infuriate fans) and the actual purpose of informing the public as to the quality of a game is secondary at best. People, including fans, should realize what reviews like Zero Punctuation are and just let them be, because they inevitably make fun of everything anybody loves. They don't necessarily hate games, it's just their job.
