Good article!

Totally see the logic behind the "follow reviewers, not publications" logic. Stopped reading Kotaku long ago because of a couple bad apples (well a lot of them I guess), and for how much The Escapist sells itself, there's still some good programs on there that don't reflect that.

One thing that a lot of reviewers miss I think is comparing games to, well other games. Going back to the movie reviewer comparison, it's kind of like a review for Expendables that doesn't at some point mention the Terminator movies or something (Speaking of movie reviewers I only know one by name, Moviebob). Kind of bringing game reviewing into it's own would help to. There's a lot of reviewers who still format like they're judging a book or something, but video games, as a visual, interactive medium, can be reviewed much differently to far greater effect.

Exactly, measuring sticks really give a lot of creditability and information in a review.

On format, I've never quite understood the reasoning behind pages, some reviews hit a page or two, many are one. Kind of seems like it's not used really, but I'm not sure if it actually would need to be used in most cases anyway. The general format of Background>Gameplay>Nuances>Drawbacks>Conclusion is nice however, that I really enjoy.

Nice, I knew some people just wrote crap for the sake of a paycheck, Game Informer comes to mind heavily.
To be honest when I read you alls reviews I don't look at the score, I'm more interested in what you think the strengths that particular game has and it's drawbacks. Like the Shin Megami Tensei Devil Survivor 2 DS review, that was nicely done.

Also I wouldn't call it an interview, seemed more like a casual chat over a cup of good ol' Joe tbh.

IMO he is completely right on most points. The thing that has always bothered me is that we (and all sites) make our money from the companies we review products for. At least on the hardware side, not sure about gaming. If you give a bad review are those companies going to stick around ? Most likely not.

Of course the fault is on both sides. Companies have found a way to buy loyalty and sites have found a way to make money. So, i don't know what would be needed to fix it, but it would be nice if review sites could make money separate from relying on the companies they review products for. Games or other wise.

Excellent article Sean! I enjoyed the casual format, with both of you opening up to each other in a comfortable manner. I don't enjoy stiff and overly businesslike interviews. He comes off as very accessible as an individual, and very passionate about his craft.

A meta site for reviewers is a great idea, but it would have to be tightly controlled to avoid their friends and family from boosting their ratings.

I read a long time ago (forgive my old rotten memory), that just about any industry which depends on reviews or critiques, suffers from the same afflictions. People can be easily swayed and bought if the price is right. *cough* politics *cough*.

I can honestly say I have never received, nor have been offered, a "gift" in exchange for a positive review. And as far as I'm aware, it hasn't happened with other members of the team either.

Not saying a week in Ireland for a high score wouldn't be nice......I kid, I kid!!!

I enjoy working with Neo because of the high integrity and honesty of the writers, editors, and PR team. Without those qualities in place, I wouldn't feel comfortable being a part of the team.

That was an interesting share. It was actually as you said, more of a thought piece and less of an interview than the title might imply. I would enjoy hearing more from Swen and hope to with the follow up piece, but it was useful to hear your own point of view.

I completely agree re the decline of the quality and integrity of reviewers in most fields, i have been a professional Creative for over 40 years, and have seen this as a chronic problem with each area of creativity starting with the fine arts, then literature and now games, in the heat of popularity and the pressure of sales and money, integrity goes out the window, and sadly not many writers rise to the top of related fields with the patience and discipline to actually learn about what they are reviewing, in the case of games, many don't play the game or often understand the genre and the communities involved. In the case of established communities of players, such as in RPGs or fantasy or simulations or Star Wars or whatever, there is a huge amount of "meaning" and interaction that the developer is relating to in creating a new titles or continuing a series that a reviewer may have no clue about..and sadly few appear to care.

So what we get are packaged 'blurbs" that masquerade as thoughtful reviews, and as for the Meta score, i have only scorn for such statistical nonsense. If you have a tree with 3000 good apples and 20 bad ones to rate the tree or your own individual apple that you pick and eat on some "average" score is the same insanity that makes a governemnt make decisions based on the "average" citizen.

Games are unique and deserve individual and unique responses. Thanks for the interesting share.