I suppose in some ways, reviewers and other gaming journalists rely on the gaming market to keep their interest in gaming high. so by promoting games, they are in effect increasing the potential for a larger audience thus increasing their potential profit. On the other hand, journalists must keep the material published as accurate as possible in order to establish reliability. however, despite this reliability, the objective ranking system seem a bit flawed to me. The majority of the time, they don't take into account different peoples tastes in games. A good example of this is fable 2. I played the first game and it was fantastic in my view and when I heard that there was a sequel I was stoked. The previews and reviews all sounded promising but as soon as I laid my hands on it I was really quite disappointed. It seemed like they took all the good parts of the previous game and replaced them with mediocre parts. The problem was that the developers were trying to branch out to more casual gamers so they simplified the game which didn't impress me at all. It would be nice if they got a mixture of gamers and let them have a few minuets with the game or something along those lines and got feed back from them.

I think in reviewing and other forms of gaming journalism, it is important to have a certain amount of both objective and subjective research. it is important to give the facts but in such a commercial industry, it is also very important to give a point of view generated from actual experience. | found the NGJ manifesto really quite intriguing as I found I had a lot of similar opinions. I especially liked the quote "The worth of gaming lies in the gamer not the game". I wouldn't say that is the exact truth but I will say that it is important that research and the journalism is done by someone who fits into the target audience for that specific (it would be a cool contrast to have a small insight from a person at the opposite end of the spectrum as well).