Examine the rise in popularity of hyper critical video game reviewers and whether or not they are simply contributing to public discourse or if they are hurting the medium as a whole by always taking an aggressively antagonistic role in their reviews. Also, if a controversial review leads to more views, does that give the reviewer a higher incentive to always release hyper critical reviews.
Controversy certainly leads to more views. There are plenty of channels that have proven that. The one thing to remember is that while "hyper critical" reviews can be potentially seen as detrimental, a lot of these channels aim for a more comedic approach; they want people to laugh as much as possible. It's very, VERY hard to make people laugh while also being nice. Maybe you could expand on that: do reviewers act more critical in an effort to be funnier and therefore help their channel grow, thus giving games poorer scores than they deserve, potentially damaging the game? Geez, that sentence was a mouthful. tl;dr: Might wanna investigate the motives as to why content creators would be hyper critical. Very interesting topic! – MrMuffin5 years ago
Something to add to this article now would be the Uncharted 4 controversy. – TGoutos5 years ago
I might angle an article from the "backlash of successful marketing" or, less formally, "hipster syndrome". It isn't enough to love games, you have to love the right games, you have to shame others for loving the wrong games, and it's essential that you disparage anything outside of your wheelhouse as lesser, along with their users. Why is it that something is only good if everything else is bad? Do we need to prove that one series/company/format is illegitimate to justify our own indulgences? – PiperCJ5 years ago