Game Reviews: Who do you trust?

gamesradar
because they have NGC

 

There are many games I have enjoyed immensely that got poor reviews. I don't trust anything IGN has to say about Star Wars games, that's for sure. They hate SW and aren't afraid to bash anything with its label.

 

Indeed.

Like how they totally bashed:

KOTOR

KOTOR II

Rogue Leader

Jedi Outcast

The Lego Game

etc.

//?

 

Perhaps its different individual reviewers?

 

The only one I trust is Nintendo Power.

 

...eh, i very rarely agree with ANY reviews consistently.

Sometimes i'll agree with what IGN said, sometimes i'll think the people at gamespot are insane.

Gamespy is the website that has the reviews i most enjoy READING... Most of the time they're in the ballpark.

Gamepro is a site that i find usually gives more reasonable scores to games that i enjoy that other websites trash (if that makes any sense).

And i do like looking at their 5.0 list.

I like Metacritic.com's AVERAGE OF ALL REVIEWS approach, too.

 

No review gives you half as much info as I would, lets be honest. And anything that gets a top 9/10 I'll throw into a sarlacc mouth burp and all.

I'm not born yesterday, I'm not fooled by Hutt pageants or Visas' throaty voice, and a top hat doesn't make Malak a cabernet dancer. I want to know what the game is really like, what it lacks, not what it preens. For in this day and age you've pretty much seen it all. Fan reviews mean less to me than a Mara marriage. Not a single Amazon reviewer downloaded the real datafiles on Homeworld 2, and if even one had explained the real nature of Warcraft 3 I would not have bought it. I'll correct that soon enough.

And after GameBanshee's and etal's glittering reviews of The Sith Lords, I'll trust my own judgement.

 

I usually just go to Game FAQ's. I find a reader review, mainly the ones that hate the game, and read them to find out exactly WHY they hate it. Then I make my judgements.

 

I usually trust PCGamer (US) and IGN.

 

Yeah but your reviews are barely comprehensable, seeing as how you use so many surperphulus words.


I go with 2 sites. Game rankings because the average out the scores of everyone, and Penny Aracade, because they say how it is.

 

Real Star Wars fan has no issues comprehending, Soontir-Fel. They are one with their lore. Don't try to fortitude save what you can't; just circlet a wisdom modifier and you'll be right.

 

Its not that I don't trust reviews or agree with them. I do trust some things that they say and I do agree with some of the things they say. However I don't let that be my final judgement of a game. I'm still going to drag my azz out and rent the game.

 

Renting isn't an option for me since I have a PC. My only hope is for a demo to be released, which often does happen but occasionally does not.

 

Game Reviews: Who do you trust?

Nobody but myself and a few other gamers who's opinions I trust.
If it looks cool I'll check it out, that's that.

 

IGN.

 

Here's a little addition to the question. Is there anyones reviews you enjoy reading, but do not trust?

Soontir mentioned Penny Arcade. I love the site, and love reading the comics, but I think I've only ever agreed with them a maximum of like 2 times when it comes to games. I call myself a jaded gamer, those guys just plain old don't like anything.

Xplay is a weird one too, they rip apart any game whether they like it or not. "This game is buggy, choppy, and not worth your time. Don't even bother with a rental! It's stale and overused gameplay is boring! We give this one 5... out of 5."

 

Even that I don't do. I don't care if if a game got LOW reviews and the majority of the gamers hates it. I will STILL go out and rent the game. Mafia is a prime example. Hyped up to be this all out great game but the review scores didn't show that. Also a lot of gamers had a lot of bad things to say about it. However I rented the game and found it to be a highly interesting game.

I guess it all depends on which version you got: PC, PS2, or X-Box. Seeing as how the game was a PC title first and then was ported to the other systems, I think the reason why places like IGN slapped Mafia with a low score was that, as good of a game as the PC version was (IGN: 9.2; PCGamer: 91%), the console versions just pale in comparison in many ways. Those poor reviews you saw were probably written by people who had played the PC version and then switched over to the console version.

 

I guess you're screwed....

 

I usually ask around in some forums I know first. Additional to reviews. I would never trust reviews alone.

My theory is, that reviewers are somewhat used to high standards, the best PCs, the best graphics, the best performance so their view isn't subjective anymore. I mean, if I would ask a king who is used to the finest clothes, the finest food and the finest equipment on what he would think over certain matters, I would only get an answer that is influenced by his surroundings. He is possibly decadent. He is somewhat used to this richness that he cannot be objective anymore - he isn't able anymore to see the world from a poor man's point of view, for example.

So, in this theory, the profesional reviwers are so used to their finest equipment, finest graphics, everything they need, that their reviews are somewhat influenced by that.

For example, a game, that has not-so-good graphics, but *huge* fun ! isn't likely to be considered as it should be. A professional reviewer - used to superb graphics because he or she can afford that or simply has an excellent machine standing in his office - will most likely - according to my theory - write bad reviews because of the not-so-good graphics. I can only hope, then, that he or she is actually able to put the fun that the game actually brings over the graphics. I prefer games with fun, not with good graphics.

Here in Germany, we have an extreme of that. At least it seems so to many, many gamers living here in Germany.

it is possible that this also happens in other countries, but I don't have enough information over that.

We see that "graphical blenders" get mch better ratings than not-so-good-looking games. The graphically shiny games get more ratings, better reviews, and better overall reports - sometimes over months. This increases sales, of course.

This increases sales and - as a double feedback - increases the development of games that contain better graphics, not better fun or gameplay. This becomes a "vicious circle".

It's like in Action-RPGs : Games that sell are most likely to be produced, again and again and again (and gain). That's why we see so many sequels, remakes, series, serials, even in movies, instead of new, fresh, original beginnings.

Another, even worse point is, that reviewers - at least that's my very personal impression - hardly recognize and preise original games. They prefer what they are used to - standards. Standards in gameplay, standards in look, standards in "how a game should be". "Different" games that just don't comply to standdards but instead invent something new, are too "edggy" to be recognized as good, new, fresh games.

Also, reviwers don't have enough time to dive into a new game. That's simply because they sit at their office (I#m speaking of magazines now, don't know how it is with online reviews), get their deadling for the next mag, and have to fulfill a certain amount of articles i that times.

That doesn't leave them with enough time to dive deeply into a game like "Vangers", for example. They simply don't have the time.

[Vangers is one of the strangest games I have *every* seen in my *whole* life.]

This lack of time results in the reviwers rather trying to cling to standards. Gameplay, look, handling, etc. .

This leads to neglecting original, difficult, "edgy" games which might be fun, but are at first look difficult because they don't comply to standards !

They don't have the time for a second look.

Also it can happen - because of that - that they greatly underrate games - or overrate them. Take the adventure "Zanzarah" for example. There is nothing like it. Honestly. I have never seen a game with a deeper immersion and a better fitting soundtrack.
The reviwers just stamped the label "pokemoon-like game" over it and that was it. They totally neglected (and even negated) the adventure part, the immersion, the fairy-tale - like environmonent - the game didn't sell. They didn't give it a second look, longer play, to discover the depths of it. *Everyone* who played it, agreed that wi

 

I only use the reviews as a reference and nothing more. A lot of the games that reviewers tend to tear apart I happen to like, so I don't pay too much attention to their opinions.