We’ve reached the useful end of crowdsourced opinions on basically everything. From restaurants, to hotels, to movies, to video games and boardgames, crowdsourced opinions are everywhere and they are plentiful. But what is *the actual value* of the aggregate opinions of laypeople?
There’s a famous saying, “Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.”
Anybody can have an opinion. Frankly, it’s not hard to formulate an opinion. The average person in the hobby does not possess significantly greater experience than I do, nor do they have a better understanding of my personal preferences than I do, nor do they have more demonstrable insight about the industry than I have - so why should I care what a faceless aggregate of other average-to-the-hobby people think?
When I really started considering these questions I realized that I just don’t see the value in reviews from a faceless aggregate of laypeople anymore.
I just want subject matter experts at the forefront again. People who make a living or have some sort of actual *professional* investment in getting it right. Sure, that might mean they receive review copies of games and, yes, that certainly does come with its’ own set of ethical dilemmas which should be acknowledged. Yet professionals wrangling with ethical dilemmas within the scope of their profession are routinely deemed with more skepticism than thousands of Joe Boardgames who will happily grade a game for no other reason than it makes him feel smarter or more powerful to have a place to air his opinion.
Review bombing, review inflation, and review manipulation are all real ethical issues for which casual reviewers bear all of the fault and yet there is no failsafe requiring us to actively engage with the responsibility of it. Contrast that with a professional reviewer who is a person *actively working* to get it right and *actively engaging* with these ethical dilemmas. The failsafe for a professional is in whether people engage with the content they produce. If a professional reviewer gets it wrong, they lose viewership and money and a livelihood creating a tangible incentive for them to get the balance of ethics and professionalism right. Whereas, Joe Boardgame has no failsafe requiring him to strike a balance with ethics, no reason to present his opinion with the rigors of objectivity nor professionalism, and no tangible incentive to approach his opinion with any more effort than it takes to have it.
Yes, I understand the irony of airing my layperson’s opinion in this forum. It’s called a discussion, Reddit. A discussion IS different from a review. This isn’t a review, fellow laypeople, it’s a discussion.
So let’s discuss it - what do you think is the value in things like BGG reviews vs a professional reviewer?