That's a negative view of the concept. I'm a opinion leader in crpgs, because I know a lot of the game mechanics, game concepts and simply because a played a lot of them in the last 30 years. Many friends, acquaintances and colleges trust my recommendations in crpg games.
On the other hand I have friends, that would never play a game that is recommended by me, because they know exactly my rpg-values and they don't agree with them (They are not sheeps).
I'm a happy opinion-follower when it comes to buying cars for example. I don't have enough knowlege about this topic and I know some experts that I can trust completely.
P.S.:
Sometimes our voices have influence in the industry - Gothic 2.5 - Night of the Raven was made harder than Gothic 2 vanilla by PB, because the fans wanted it.
A negative view?
No, I simply don't agree with it.
You're equating cars with games, which is a mistake. Even so, I bet you can get 10 car experts to furiously disagree about what car is the best one, for a specific price. They'd be furious, because they're just as silly as the gamer who thinks he knows what game is the better one. Juvenile attitudes that stick to adults like glue.
Games are about fun - and no matter what you tell yourself, you can't measure fun in terms of function and feature lists.
If a casual gamer gets more enjoyment out of Arcania than Gothic, then Arcania is "better" to him.
It's really that simple, and I don't see how anyone could miss something that obvious.
Besides, I'm pretty sure I don't agree with everyone else who is an enthusiast RPG "expert". I tend to prefer non-linear open world games like Gothic, and others prefer more tightly structured games like The Witcher or something similar. Neither of us are right, we just have different preferences.
We don't lead anything, except our own personal opinions. I truly find the concept of knowing what makes an objectively fun game laughable and supremely naive. If that was true, then we'd have a recipe for great games that all could follow - and everyone would have fun. That's about as ignorant as you can get.
It REALLY is completely and utterly subjective, and nothing will ever be objectively more fun - unless every single gamer agrees with it.
The thing is that casual gamers don't want to invest as much as the enthusiasts, because it's not their passion or hobby. It shouldn't be, should it? We can't claim the right to "own" the industry - because we're not adding to it more than the casual gamer.
About the only person who I would consider "more important" is the artist himself, because he's the one creating - and as such he should be in charge. The sad thing is, that the artist isn't in charge. The money is in charge.
