Now, I have some GameSpot staffers among those tracking my blog, so this is probably going to be screened through thoroughly.

Now, why would I want to write such an article that carries a big risk of offending all the wrong people? Simple, for game reviewers have helped me make good decisions in choosing which games to play. In light of recent, very disappointing games like Fairytale Fights, Painkiller: Resurrection and Marvel Super Hero Squad, whose shortfalls that their developers and publishers thought can be glossed over with some semblance of "unique" presentation.

Playing games and reviewing them is not necessarily a fun task. Depending on the product being reviewed, game reviewers either will nurture fond memories, or have nightmares burned into their mind. The latter typically results in usually temporary loss of emotional faculties and of course professionalism.

(No, most bad games will not drive one insane if he/she has to play it. There isn't any news of US intelligence agencies forcing suspects to play terrible video games after all - at least none that I know of.)

"Well, they are paid to do that - even playing bad games," one (insensitive person) would say.

Monetary remuneration and other employment benefits will hardly make up for the trauma, apparently.

Recall (now absent from GameSpot) Alex Navarro's review of Big Rigs, one of the worst games ever to tarnish the PC platform. In his video, he was quite derailed. Of course, his antics was intentionally filmed, but for him to consider filming what is not exactly a professionally performed video review, that's saying something about how terrible the effect on the mind that this game has.

(In fact, the game was so bad, most reviewers at that time did not even review it - probably because this game does not have big brands attached to it, as said big brands are not so stupid as to not notice how terrible this game is.)

If bad games do not result in uncharacteristic behavior, then it would be severe frustration, depression, cynicism and sarcasm. Perhaps people studying gamers' psychology ought to do a paper on bad games. Examples include Andrew Park's video reviews of a certain game and another too terrible to mention, and These reviews would be hilarious, were they not attempts by said reviewers to keep hold of their respective sanities.

As a side note, notice how many times Andrew blinked in that video review. Perhaps he's trying to blink out the terrible memories that are invoked when he speaks of the game?

Some games were so bad, that the reviewers dare not even show their faces when they do the video review. Instead, company time is spent on making a pseudo-documentary with a persona that is a mockery of the game's theme, such as Bob Colayco's review of the very lacking game that is Terminator 3: War of the Machines.

In fact, there can be so many bad games that game reviewers even have the gall to reserve special halls of shame for them. (2005's dubious honors were simply the most amusing.)

WARNING: CLICKING ON ABOVE PICTURES WILL LEAD TO VIDEOS OR WEBPAGES THAT MAY INDIRECTLY CAUSE INJURIES FROM EXCESSIVE EXPRESSIONS OF AMUSEMENT

2nd. WARNING: DO NOT PESTER ABOVE-MENTIONED INDIVIDUALS ON THEIR VIDEOS - YOU (AND I) MAY GET A TERRIBLE BEATING

Of course, for some who react in what is technically an irrational manner, there are some who can provide reviews of bad games with uncanny - should I say this - professionalism. A good example would be Kevin vanOrd's review of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, in which every down point of the game is described in excruciating detail, one by one. Only the most idiotic of people would consider playing, much less purchasing the game.

(Though it is likely in the aftermath of that hideously inadequate game, Kevin drowned himself in Demon's Souls.)