What is the next game about? Well, think of what is the least exciting genre of video games. It is probably the stock market simulation game.
Despite how easy it is to criticize, critics (think Roger Ebert
) have a hard job of it. They need to be as objective as possible in their assessments not just to gain and maintain credibility in their audience's eyes, but also because it can completely overshadow and ruin the review itself as a work.
Granted, critics are (probably)
human and have pet peeves or favorites, and good/bad performances and dialogue are certainly open to criticism, but when these feelings get out of hand and leak into the review, things get worse.
If the critic has a strong bias against or in favor of a genre, style, director, actor, or what have you, and
he allows that acerbic vitriol or blind admiration to fill his review, he's driving a Bias Steamroller. The review stops being about the work and becomes about the element that inspires the bias
; essentially boiling down to "I love (or hate) A; since work B has A in it, I love (or hate) work B; therefore you should (not) watch it."
This may be because he hates a particular trope
or just likes hating in general
. Then again, he may be a fan of the series/franchise/creator who, out of loyalty, never fails to give the most glowing of praise. In any case, the damage to the review is such that it becomes too biased to be useful. (When a reviewer does this, people tend to ignore it, when fans often use it, it becomes a justified use of Don't Like, Don't Read
In some of the worst cases, the reviewer may fixate on a particular thing they liked or disliked and give the impression that they might actually not have seen the work in question. And there are times where they actually haven't seen much of it.
Part of the reason this trope exists, is that a review that accurately informs the readers about a subject's objective qualities, and allows them to make an informed purchasing decision, can be very boring.
A hugely biased review, by contrast, may not be useful qua review, but may be entertaining enough to keep the readers coming back.
Note that this happens a lot outside of media criticism. Because it's just easier to remember particularly noticeable or dramatic experiences and events, this routinely happens in both positive and negative ways to people like politicians and celebrities.
Compare Fan Dumb
, Hate Dumb
, Caustic Critic
, Opinion Myopia
, Public Medium Ignorance
Compare/Contrast Unpleasable Fanbase
Often targets certain genres
Note: This is not a way to complain about reviews or reviewers you don't like, unless there actually is a bias steamroller inherent in the reviews.
Examples (sorted by medium being reviewed):
open/close all folders
Anime and Manga
- The Nostalgia Critic has stated that this trope is the reason why he doesn't do anime. He avoids running a Bias Steamroller over it by not reviewing any at all, instead leaving it to other people on his site. Eventually, he did do a crossover review on the Digimon movie with the more anime-oriented JesuOtaku to balance out his perspective on the movie.
- He has done a couple of popular and mainstream animes like Pokémon and Ponyo, but puts heavy emphasis on the fact that he has no clue what is going on and plays it for comedy. To be fair, though, he's responded that way to plenty of American works too.
- Though it's very much subverted in his Disneycember 2014 videos, half of which were devoted to Studio Ghibli films. It's clear that he has tremendous respect for Hayao Miyazaki and the other animators at the studio, and gushes about how much he loves most of them.
- Anime News Network has a number of reviewers who hate all things moe with a burning passion and think it's killing the industry.
- ANN's review of the Saiyuki anime was apparently done by a guy who hated it for not being Shōnen.
- Carl Kimlinger's coverage of first two episodes of The Remake of the Hunter × Hunter anime during the site's Fall 2011 Anime preview guide absolutely reeked of this trope. Almost all of his criticisms toward the show amount to him listing all of the ways it completely disgraces the original anime, without ever considering that as a remake, it should stand on its own.
- ANN's review of the Mahoromatic anime series is similarly biased, with the reviewer focusing almost exclusively on the fact that Mahoro, the female protagonist, is a maid for a male character, which is apparently sexist despite the fact that Mahoro was doing it of her own accord and had a really damn good justification for doing it, not to mention that being a maid is a real and perfectly-acceptable job in the world, and there are many maids who are quite happy with their jobs. This actually ended up screwing him over in his review of the second season, which he attacked as being mostly "pointless filler"; the specific episodes which he referred to as filler are in fact some of the most story-and-plot intensive episodes in the whole series. Suffice to say, many a Mahoro fan were quite cross with this overly-biased and blatantly self-serving series of critiques.
- Daryl Surat of the Anime World Order podcast also crusades against the "Dread Spectre of Moe" at every opportunity, and voices his dislike of the concept of "neo-shonen" - Shonen manga that dares to pursue a wider audience than simply teenage boys, and either gain, or deliberately court a female following.
- Several reviewers have also dismissed the otherwise high profile Studio Ghibli dubs out of bias against several or one of the actors participating in it, leading them to state they "ruin" the film instead of actually evaluating their performance in question or giving them a chance.
- The worst afflicted film in this case is The Secret World Of Arrietty, which featured two Disney Channel stars in the lead roles. Many people bashed their performances for being emotionless and of generally poor quality, when in fact, in many more professional reviewers' perspectives, they have some of the best performances in the whole film.
- The question of whether Confused Matthew belongs in here or not is a matter of contention. In his review for Spirited Away, he admits outright that he dislikes anime, calling it a "genre," and he doesn't mean to persuade anyone who likes anime to share his opinion. He then proceeds to bash the crap out of it.
- Atop the Fourth Wall host Linkara is decidedly not a fan of anti-heroes in comics. He primarily views superhero comics as escapism (not that he has a problem with them tackling serious subjects or challenging the viewpoint of the reader) and really thinks that anyone deserving of the title "superhero" should at least be trying to take the moral high road in any given situation. This can sometimes cause him to be overly harsh to Marvel comics vs. DC comics because DC doesn't have nearly as many anti-heroes, whereas Marvel has several and even has previous boyscouts like Cyclops becoming this in the last few years. This bias also colors any review of any Darker and Edgier comic. He also really hates it when superheroes are killed off, but understands why it happens in some cases.
- In an in-universe example, this represents the Lemony Narrator of Equestria: A History Revealed's attitude to opposing historical arguments to a T. No matter what kind of logic hoops she has to jump through, no matter how many absolutely ridiculous theories she has to come up with, she'll find a way to make sure her "truth" always comes out on top.
- Nostalgia Critic-like fanfiction critic The Fic Critic (No, not that one, nor this one, the text-based one) has noted that he tends to be biased against fics that act meanly towards certain characters or treats them badly, especially ones he likes. One noteworthy example was when he went from distainful but amused at the stupidity of Web Of Shadows, a Spider-Man/X-Men Evolution crossover Mary Sue Parody fic, to outright anger and chain swearing after Carlie Cooper called Mary Jane Watson, whom he admitted is one of his, if not the, favourite Spider-Man supporting character, a slutty model who dresses like a street walker. His reaction to her calling Mary Jane this is one of the few times he went from snarky to outright pissed, and ended up giving that chapter a Fuck/10.
- An in-universe example in Brave Story (at least the book version), where one of Wataru's friends asks if a game has magic, and when he's told that it doesn't, he loses all interest in it.
- From a biography of Dorothy L Sayers:
In 1927 Dorothy joined the Society of Authors and brought many grievances to their notice. She complained bitterly about James Agate’s ‘unfairness’—a mild word in the circumstances—to members of the Detection Club. If the great man did not happen to like the book he had under review he gave away the plots, and as he disliked anything and everything about women (always excepting Sarah Bernhardt) he gave away their plots on principle.
- Analog Science Fiction-Science Fact has had a book review column since its Astounding days, and usually has the same reviewer from issue to issue. An exception was always made, however, during the last decade of Robert A. Heinlein's career. His books were always reviewed by Spider Robinson, who was and is a gushing Heinlein fanboy. This is thus an example of the Bias Steamroller in reverse, where the reviews were useless because the reviewer was entirely unobjective in a positive direction.
- Religious apologetics are constantly subjected to this by those who aren't part of the religious faith they're promoting or defending. For example, Sam Harris (a public atheist and the author of such books as The End Of Faith and Letter To A Christian Nation) is notorious for "reviewing" religious apologetics, essentially criticizing them for simply existing. Christian apologists are equally notorious for doing this with atheist-themed literature.
- While not quite reviewing, in a Reality TV show article that rated the US version's "Big Brother winners" the author obviously had one of these. He praised Daniele and Will for playing the strategic game and knowing it; and despite saying the same for Maggie, trashed the hell out of her because he liked Janelle better. He also flat out refused to write anything positive about Mike Malin for the same reason (ie, he liked Janelle better). He also trashed the heck out of Dan and Drew saying they didn't really deserve to win their respective seasons because he disliked them and was unable to respect their gameplay.
- Penn & Teller's Bullshit featured this "disclaimer" in their "Family Values" episode. They admit they're biased and it would be pretty clear with pretty much every topic they did which side they'd be on. Didn't stop them from calling folks "assholes."
Penn: The most frequent question we get asked about this show is, why would assholes like Brian Brown and Michael Medved come on a show called Bullshit! to get called "assholes"? We do not lie to them; we make sure they know all about the show. We give them copies of past shows, and it's always pretty clear which side of the issue we're gonna be on. The long answer is that people who come on this show generally consider themselves to be bulletproof. Most have never talked to anyone with a dissenting view, and certainly no one with a real research team, like ours. If you say something on our show, we check it. If you lie or make something up, we know. But we're fair — we never take people out of context. We're biased as all fuck, but we try to be honest. Now, that's the long answer. The short answer? [Penn and Teller shrug.]
- Maureen Ryan, the lead TV reviewer for the Huffington Post, used her review of the FX series Tyrant as an excuse to launch into a long diatribe about how much she hates depictions of rape on television.
- Gina Bellafonte's infamous "review" of the first episode of Game of Thrones, where she simply rants about how terrible the entire fantasy genre is to the point that she hardly ever gets around to saying anything about the actual show. Many fans were understandably suspicious that she hadn't even watched the episode.
- In general, music aimed at or popular with teenage girls tends to take a lot of heat from both professional critics and music fans alike. It doesn't matter how good the singer/group is. If it's popular with 12-19 year old females, it will automatically be trashed and/or excluded from music critics' Best Of... lists (even if the singer/group was acclaimed by those same critics). The ironic thing is that even music aimed at teenage boys doesn't get this kind of punishment. There are many theories as to why this is so, with one of them being the negative stereotypes associated with teenage girls. Which, in turn, negatively affect critical opinion of music aimed at them. The issue is, in fact, dissected in the "Stuff Mom Never Told You" podcast Why are boy bands so popular?
- One of the most notorious examples of a bias steamroller in music criticism is Lester Bangs. A huge fan of free jazz and punk-related rock, if a musician was a virtuoso yet engaged in a genre that was outside of Bangs' tastes (including Progressive Rock, Led Zeppelin-styled hard rock) he would trash him/her with very little, if any, justification (at one point, comparing Keith Emerson of Emerson, Lake & Palmer to a trained seal).
- Even worse, Bangs became a seminal and influential figure who inspired large numbers of fans to go into music journalism. As a result, many of Bangs's sweeping personal dislikes have become largely unexamined orthodoxy among music critics to this day.
- Punk '77 follows the same approach as Bangs. His suggests to those who encounter a Progressive Rock album is to destroy it simply for not being "true Rock 'N Roll". Also his page for The Beatles refers to the band as "musical Anti-Christs" and says the band is bad because the Manson Family took inspiration from them.
- Progressive Rock in general has been one of the favorite whipping boys of rock critics, second only to disco.
- In terms of publications, the now-defunct Blender Magazine was especially notorious for this. Often giving low ratings to albums by virtue of the author's own disdain for their particular genre. For example, Primus was considered one of the worst bands of all time by the magazine mostly by virtue of their distaste for progressive rock.
- Christian Clemmensen of Filmtracks towards anything done by a young composer, done in a non-traditional style or done by Hans Zimmer. He also hates the Oscars and composers like Vangelis (whom Clemmensen claimed was a one-hit wonder, a major Critical Research Failure on his part) whom he claims are undeserving Oscar winners.
- Piero Scaruffi's reviews are rather infamous for his seemingly biased (and mostly negative) opinion towards many popular musicians, most notably The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Radiohead and David Bowie.
- Todd in the Shadows hates Chris Brown with the burning fury of a thousand suns (both his music and Chris Brown as a person, as well as Team Breezy) so much so that his review of "Turn Up the Music" only has about 30 seconds of him reviewing the song itself, the rest of the review being taken up by a long rant against him.
- In the same video, though, he admits that he does like a few of Chris Brown's songs, and wants to get past the main reason he hates him (the whole Domestic Abuse debacle with Rihanna), but that Chris Brown's massive ego and refusal to truly learn anything from his mistakes won't let him.
- He's also heavily biased against the "White guy with acoustic guitar" genre, although he occasionally singles out songs in that genre that he does like.
- He has stated that he is no fan of "mellow music," and it shows - he seems to be trying his hardest to be fair to songs that express sentiments that he finds obnoxious, but he'll tear apart without remorse any song that doesn't aspire to be more than inoffensive, unchallanging, easy listening. He straight up admitted that this bias is why he put Kenny G's instrumental "Songbird" as #1 on his Worst Hit Songs of 1987 list, despite not having any real complaints against the song aside from him finding it "boring".
- Attempted on his review of One Direction's "Best Song Ever". He launches into the review, expecting the song to contain all the aspects of One Direction songs that have made him hate their previous works… only to find out that he actually enjoys the song.
- Jonathan Keefe of Slant Magazine gave Faith Hill's 2005 comeback album Fireflies a zero star rating, and spent most of the review bashing Faith Hill for being "characterized by fashionably late trend-hopping". He literally spends more of the review ranting about Faith than he does actually reviewing the album.
- Stephen Thomas Erlewine of Allmusic seems to have a bizarre relation with Big & Rich. He's reviewed their entire catalog, including the solo albums that both Big Kenny and John Rich had recorded before the duo's foundation (both recorded in 1999, but not released until 2005), and the works put out by both members during a mid-2000s hiatus (a solo album from each, plus two EPs from Rich). He praised Big & Rich's first two studio albums and Big Kenny's first solo album for their creativity, giving four stars to each, but thought that the duo ran out of steam on their third album. His bias towards Big & Rich being has-beens seems to have bled into the reviews of the solo recordings they put out while on hiatus, as Big Kenny's first post-hiatus solo album got one-and-a-half stars for being "alienating" (even though he said of the Kenny's other solo album — i.e., the one that he gave four stars — that it was "too damn weird to market"), and slammed both of Rich's EPs for "pandering". And the bias towards Big & Rich continues with their fourth album, which he gave a middling review — and yes, even continued to say "Big & Rich used to be creative, but now they're boring". This finally changed with their fifth album, which he praised for almost completely abandoning the "party" shtick in favor of AC-flavored country that he found mostly enjoyable.
- Greil Marcus will often have a strong bias for or against individual works or eras in a single artist's discography. For example, in his book about Van Morrison, When That Rough God Goes Riding, he curtly dismisses everything Morrison recorded between 1980 and 1996, a period that includes several fan-favorite albums.
- Dave Marsh in his review of Jazz by Queen, specifically when he invokes Godwin's Law by saying the band "may be the first truly fascist rock band".
- Most Heel commentators will hate Face wrestlers, and complain vociferously when they do anything vaguely illegal, while denying anything a heel wrestler does is against the rules.
- In SHIMMER, Portia Perez takes this Up to Eleven in any match involving her tag team partner Nicole Matthews.
- WWE commentators refuse to so much as acknowledge the existence of any wrestling promotion not owned by WWE (probably on Vince McMahon's instructions). When it can't be ignored, they often spout misinformation like Sin Cara being a heavyweight champion in AAA and CMLL(he hadn't been in the former at the time and was in the wrong weight class either way)
- When it comes to internet reviewers, WWE Diva matches can receive one in three reviews - one by a Diva fan, one by a neutral observer who will give proper criticism and one by someone usually invoking Real Women Don't Wear Dresses. The third kind tend to be unnaturally critical of Diva matches regardless of whether or not they're good. A lot of the time it can be glaringly obvious that the reviewer has not watched the match. They'll either be open about it - calling it a "piss break" - or else use expressions like "typical Divas match".
- Eddie McGuire, Australian Rules Football commentator and president of the Collingwood Football Club. When Channel 9 first got the AFL broadcast rights, they attempted to recruit respected radio commentator Tim Lane, but the deal fell apart due to Lane objecting to McGuire's conflict of interest.
- On a couple of occasions, cable channel Fox Footy has given Eddie free reign in the commentary box during Collingwood matches as interactive content, offering viewers a choice between his commentary or the regular commentators. They also did this for a Richmond match, with Richmond legend Kevin Bartlett at the mike.
- Game FA Qs reviewers: It's not uncommon to find reviews that are merely "This game sucks because it's an RPG", "This game sucks because it's an FPS", "This game rules because it's a point and click adventure game", "This game sucks and has shitty graphics", "This game sucks because it's a Nintendo game", or whatever steamroller that particular poster like to drive.
- Or not to mention, people going in-depth with one bad experience and accentuating that entirely; even if they were blatantly doing something wrong.
- Yahtzee is very up front about his bias against JRPGs and the Wii. His Wii Sports Resort review was clearly made with the "I hate it, everyone knows I'll hate it, let's just go nuts" mentality. He has the same feeling about fighting games - his later reviews of fighting games criticized the genre more than they criticized the games. Oddly, while he also dislikes real time strategy games, he expresses that by simply never reviewing them at all. He bases games because he's both really tough, and because it makes for better entertainment.
- Not to mention his hate for "modern shooters", constantly bashing "chest-high walls", regenerating health, macho protagonists and grim and gritty settings.
- His hate for "modern shooters" seems to be more aimed at the Strictly Formula Follow the Leader style they take - put a bunch of ethnic types on the other end of our gunsights with little to no explanation of why exactly we're supposed to be killing them and knock off for the day after a three-hour single player campaign. It's less that he hates the style (at least initially it was, he's probably thoroughly sick of every facet of it by this point) and more that he's had to play so many of them.
- He also goes the other way sometimes; for one thing, he's a rabid Valve fanboy (to the extent that his rampant cynicism will allow). Portal got his only completely positive review ever, and his only significant complaint about the Half-Life series is that it takes too long for each game to come out. He does criticize Valve games a bit, but always gives more of a "friendly joshing" impression rather than the nuclear explosions of vitriol applied to games by pretty much anyone else. The only exception seems to be Portal 2, which he seemed almost biased against because it wasn't Portal 1 (and even then, he still liked it enough to name it the Best Game of 2011).
- He's extremely critical of sequels, saying that sequels should introduce enough fresh gameplay and story elements to be genuinely distinctive, rather than simply being the first game, but with a new engine and Dual Wielding. He is also contemptuous of games like BioShock 2 that continue with the story when there are no hanging plot threads, in his eyes.
- Compared to other games Yahtzee tears apart, the majority of his reviews on Nintendo games in general (post GameCube) focuses more on the company itself for their shortcomings and failures instead of talking about their specific games (unless it has some really strong points that he needs to point out) and he makes no attempt to hide his disgust.
- It doesn't come up too much, because he's a game critic and not a film or television critic, but Yahtzee really hates Joss Whedon, to the point that he claims he only has three character types: The Badass, The Ditz and the one that alternates between the two.
- Finnish games reviewer and columnist Niko Nirvi once took note of this effect in a column explaining the various ways in which a review score can be affected by outside factors, such as the "Wrong Guy" effect, where the game in question is a sequel to something that the reviewer previously loathed, the Ancestor effect, where the game is made by an established developer, so the score is based entirely on what the reviewer thinks of the developers, or the Genre Bonus effect, where the reviewer is a fan of the IP the game is based on ("It's a Batman game! I love Batman! Have some Bat-points!"). There's also the Critic effect, where the reviewer can't admit to liking anything that isn't independent or artsy, and the exact opposite phenomenon, the Laddie effect.
- GamePro would often disparage an RPG because it was an RPG. They gained considerable infamy in the late-90's when they gave Xenogears and Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete 2.5 Fun Factors. While, in the case of "politically important" games like Final Fantasy VIIInote , they would heap a ton of cynicism into their reviews but hesitantly give the games 4.5 or 5.0 Fun Factors. This attitude also seeped into their coverage, wherein they would make all sorts of research flaws while making guides and showing other information about games that was blatantly wrong.
- One particularly heinous review for Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force had the review bashing the related Star Trek: Voyager television series which had nothing to do with the review, before going on to admit that the game was good despite his bias. One wonders why they didn't have a reviewer who at least had a passing interest in the show review the game based on it.
- Parodied in Homestuck by the magazine "Game Bro," whose review of SBURB, the game at the heart of the plot of the webcomic, was written by someone who didn't even play the game because it isn't a beat-'em-up or skateboarding game.
- Conversely, Gamepro had an inexplicable affinity for street fighting games and the Mortal Kombat series in particular (just look at their magazine covers from 1993 to about 1999 - at least 90% of them were fighting game character collages). Enough that they were probably the only publication in existence to actually give Mortal Kombat Trilogy on the Nintendo 64 a positive review.
- Game Informer tends to flat out trash whatever games are considered "casual" merely on basis of not being "Core" games. This was especially blatant in their review of FarmVille, in which they don't find the game bad on its own merits - they find it bad because it's not like Mass Effect 2. They've admitted in the past that they have a bias steamroller for whatever they believe their readers' biases are.
- Their review of Sonic Generations complained less about flaws in the game itself, but more about the fact that SEGA celebrated the history of Sonic past 1994. They admit to enjoying the game, both Classic and Modern, up until the Sonic 3 & Knuckles part and loathing everything past that. This is particularly baffling when their review for Sonic the Hedgehog (2006) was oddly positive (and got a better score) in the face of everyone else tearing it apart.
- Their review of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare for the Wii focused more on the fact that anyone wanted to develop shooters for the Wii than on the game itself.
- They loathe the Mario Party series. They have never given any of the games in the series a rating higher than 4/10, and whenever they preview a new entry they can barely hide their contempt.
- They also seem to loathe the Paper Mario series as well.
- They also have displayed a pretty strong dislike of the Army of Two series, largely aimed at the protagonists Rios and Salem. When The Devil's Cartel was announced, one of the things they praised in the preview was that they were getting replaced with a pair of generic guys.
- Noah Antwiler, the maker of The Spoony Experiment, has admitted that he's biased against the central tropes of the JRPG genre, and knows that most of his criticism for the Final Fantasy series is about things that fans of the series love. However, he considers himself an entertainer first, and a critic second.
- He's also willing to admit bias in other areas. For example, he hates Final Fantasy IX's art style, but admits he's probably being "massively unfair" and might like the game if he gave it a fair chance, but says he just can't get past the art. Likewise, he said that he thought Captain America: The First Avenger was a good movie, but couldn't enjoy it more than that because he's never been a fan of Captain America in general.
- Interesting inversion for his written review of Serenity - he starts off by saying how he really is not a fan of Joss Whedon's work, but then goes on to give the movie a very good review, praising the show for being interesting and different and appealing to even a non-fan.
- On a related note, Angry Joe started his review of The Witcher 2 Assassins Of Kings by accusing every single website that gave it negative review of being just biased against RPGs that are different from Dragon Age: Origins. YMMV if he is right or not.
- Which is rather odd since The Witcher 2 has a higher Metacritic rating than Dragon Age II, and only a little lower than Origins.
- The Angry Video Game Nerd does indeed have his biases. He often admits them, such as how he doesn't really do adventure games because he "sucks at them" and doesn't really figure out how to get further in them. (Given the nature of many adventure games, especially at the timeframe he reviews games from, one can't really blame him too much.) He also admits this in his Castlevania reviews, admitting he found Symphony of the Night to be inferior to Super Castlevania IV. However, he also shows this Bias Steamroller towards the post-Super Castlevania IV games in many other ways in the forms of some often critical research failures. Among these are confusing the plot of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow with Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (which is pretty interesting he made this mistake seeing as he's shown playing Dawn of Sorrow) and getting some facts about Castlevania 64 wrong.note He also makes it pretty obvious that he's a fan of Nintendo and has a preference for it in his Console Wars videos as well as his "Pong consoles" videos. Part of the reason is also because that's what he was most familiar with (he actually started as the Angry Nintendo Nerd).
- X-Play has pretty huge biases against RPGs, World War II games and Koei's Warriors games. They also love to accentuate how much they hate doing escort missions, and this often seeps into their reviews where they may often trash World War II games/RPGs on basis of being sick of World War II/not liking RPGs, and in the case of the latter, severely not doing any bit of research in the game. That is; depending on whether or not it's Adam or Morgan doing the review and not just a writer.
- When The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword won the fan voted Game of the Year, the hosts said the only reason it won was because of angry Nintendo fans, and showed an air of contempt.
- Occasionally averted in the case of RPGs. They seem to like Final Fantasy XII and The Elder Scrolls series, having given Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim all 5/5 stars.
- They also despise anime and games based on anime, as well as anyone who enjoys them.
- In a small segment of their Mario special called "Bad Mario Games", they included Luigis Mansion on the list and gave it 2 stars out of 5 on their website solely because it was a Luigi game for the Nintendo GameCube's launch and not a Mario game.
- PeanutButterGamer is a huge The Legend of Zelda fanboy and doesn't even try to hide it (the background he uses for many shots of himself is practically wallpapered with Zelda posters). This frequently slips into things like his top ten list, but he openly admits any Zelda-related entry might objectively belong elsewhere on the list... but he's not objective.
- He also vehemently rejects any game from the My Sims series, based on his impressions of the first one.
- Armake21 admits to being very biased against derivative games and the "mainstream" video game press in general.
- Cracked has an article called "5 Reasons It's Still Not Cool To Admit You're a Gamer. #2 is "We're still distracted by shiny things." It then uses Alan Wake as an example. Apparently people were giving the game bad reviews on gaming blogs for not using the maximum resolution the Xbox 360 is capable of.
- From the Game Grumps:
- Arin HATES Sonic the Hedgehog. The entire franchise. The first game and Sonic Generations are the only games he's given any sort of praise for whatsoever, and he says that the Sonic Adventure games were just as bad as '06. Even Jon is baffled by this.
- Although, Jon has similar views on the original 2D Sonic games at least, as they were featured on his, much hated, "Top 10 Most Overrated Games" Video, where he expressed similar viewpoints to Arin's. The difference is their opinions on the Adventure games.
- Surprisingly, Arin admitted in his Shadocon Q&A panel that while Sonic '06 was terrible, he finds it fun to play, though admittedly he prefers the experience he has with Jon.
- In the Nintendo Land videos, the Grumps have been complaining about Skyward Sword's controls not being as accurate as the Nintendo Land Zelda ride's - cue the comments being flooded with fans claiming the controls are identical.
- Arin hates the term "Metroidvania", because he considers the first part of that word far superior to the second. (Sonic #54)
, the Metroid-y Castlevania games. Arin: (bristles)
I just detest— Jon:
THE ADVENTUREY... THE MORE, THE, TH— SYMPHONY OF THE NIGHT
- Jon has a hatred for all tutorials (which leads to a lot of obvious moments), at one point going into an enraged rant over Monita's appearances in Nintendo Land even though he can easily just tap (-) to skip it.
- Both of them admitted to absolutely loathing Half-Life 2, saying it had no direction or point. Subverted when their complaints are it lacks killstreaks or random encounters, and they actually both love it.
- Arin is in the pro-DmC camp, and Jon is... not. (Playstation All Stars Battle Royale #2)
- Family-oriented media review site Common Sense Media is sometimes guilty of giving games, movies, etc. low ratings due to their apparent lack of family-friendly content. Perhaps the most egregious example of this is their review of Warcraft III. The author gave the game a two star rating (out of five) not because there was anything fundamentally wrong with it, but because he felt its content was too violent for kids. To be fair, that was one of their earliest reviews, and the website as a whole seems to have loosened up quite a bit since then (as their positive review for StarCraft II demonstrates).
- Cartoon Brew with Motion Capture, remakes, CGI (as long as it's not Pixar but even then...) and pretty much anything if it wasn't made prior to the 1960s and to a lesser extent anything post-'90s.
- When Doug Walker reviewed the two Cars movies as part of his "Disneycember" Pixar review month, he made it clear right away that he hated the very concept behind Cars. And then he brings up again and again how making the characters of the movie cars was a stupid idea.
- It's no secret that Confused Matthew hates The Lion King. But despite having already voiced his opinion of it in a review, he continues to bash and voice his hatred for the movie at every turn, going on about how he views it as one of Disney's worst. (While all the while saying he isn't trying to change anyone's opinion of the movie).