Like it or don't, many gamers do read reviews with an eye toward an eventual purchase, but that's not the only reason they read them. They also read to get another person's viewpoint, to see if it dovetails with their own opinion. This is the best kind of quality control a gamer can commit: read a lot of different reviews, and see whose thoughts agree with theirs. In this way, they learn to trust a particular voice, and know that they can rely on future reviews to provide them the information they need to make a good choice (a distinction Sheffield himself makes much later in the piece). This is the true value of the Internet: its ability to provide access to like-minded voices -- and frequently, for free.

Moving on to his next point, Sheffield makes a comment that journalists "possess a certain idolatry" for developers. I've seen this borne out in reviews many times -- developers called by name, their past games mentioned with reverence; there's nothing wrong with this, of course, but it does suggest at least an initial bias. However, the opposite is true as well: journalists who seem to bear grudges against certain developers who they feel routinely make poor game mechanics decisions; who get attacked for their outspoken nature when defending their games; who they think are undeserving of their position for a hundred different reasons. Game journalists run the spectrum of personality, from foul-mouthed, barely-literate spewers of anomie to well-educated, thoughtfully-respectful purveyors of intelligent criticism. There is ample room for every type, but moreover, quality wins in the end. Everyone has their own audience, who follow them for their own reasons.

The next section of Sheffield's article is the one most deserving of analysis. He writes that the majority of game journalists have no training in criticism or journalism, and that's probably true. What's unclear is why, exactly, this should be a deterrent to having something worthwhile to say. As previously mentioned, the strongest recommendation a reviewer can hold is that he or she thinks the way you do about what makes a good game. While training in journalism or criticism can provide tools that will help a reviewer elucidate their thoughts and communicate them easily to their audience, a game review is a simple thing that should be simply worded. It should be of moderate length, contain plain and direct language, and boil down to nothing more exceptional than "I liked it because/I didn't like it because". If the review is anything more than that, it runs the risk of thinking itself more important than the game under review.