14 DAY TRIAL // So now we have game analysts. No problem, you can never have enough opinions on a game but that's a reviewer's job if I'm not mistaken. Why do we need an expert in "game analysis," who will ask for a fat paycheck at the end of the week, just to tell us what we're playing on our computer or game system? A 13-year old will do it for a lousy game cartridge for his DS, even better too.
Are these "experts" so good at predicting a console's sales figures, or a game's potential, that they actually have to be paid to do that. Take the PSP title Daxter for instance. What kind of special analysis are they going to make about a game in which an imaginary animal kills fantastic bugs and dragonflies in a fairy tale world? The game is what it is, no need to make an expertise to figure out what crazy idea led to its development.
On the other hand, you can't really blame them, as the game industry has never been more flourishing and where there's a game analysis to be done, there surely are a lot of money involved. But still, I don't really see the point, as there aren't that many games to be thoroughly analyzed from all points of view. And even if there were, who reads that crap anyway? Who would want to read the entire encyclopedia for a game when just popping in the game and playing it will tell you everything you need to know?
To make it even more hilarious, Joystiq decided to dig into this and asked prominent analyst Michael Pachter about his job and what happens if he's wrong. The answer: "If I am wrong in the press, I'll embarrass myself." That's it? No "if you do that again you're fired?" Beats the hell out of going to Harvard that's for sure.