Games reviews - who do you trust?

quarryman

Lots of accusations flying around about some 'questionable' scores on the latest releases. While this is nothing new it will of particular interest with the likes of Dead Space, Fable 2, Fallout 3 and GOW2 all popping up with reviews.

I have tended to pay most attention to Eurogamer but some scores have been over-favourable (Spore anyone? 6/10 at best).

I used to read gamespot but then the whole Kane & Lynch debacle......

So what sites take the back-handers and should be avoided? Does it really go on that much?

Shryke

When it comes to checking out anything, whether it's a book or film or game I just read a load of different reviews from all sources. This gives me a very good impression of what the game/film/whatever is like and whether I would like it.

Stev_o

PC Gamer for me i listen to all their podcasts and they seem like the same sort of gamer that i am so i trust them slightly more then any other reviewer.

That said though you shouldnt always take reviews for face value.

Gran Hermano

I never trust gamespot, especially after the 'resignation' of a reviewer who slated a game from a company that had spent a shed load on advertising on the site.

Check metacritic.com as they give an average of all reviews

Plus on the 360 and pc I'll download a demo and guage it myself before buying when I can.

cashville

I generally go to IGN.com just because it has lots of good quality content...saying that I think their reviews can be questionable to say the least. They gave Spore a good rating too, like 88-ish percent when in truth it's complete cack. Also, Fable 2 got 88% for the IGN review but 95% from IGN UK and 92% from IGN Oz...I don't get it?
What I look for is a review that averages in the high 80's or more across a few sites and then some favourable word of mouth...I reckon too many of the sites bump up scores because of some link with the publisher/developer.

Any recommendations for somewhere that gives fair reviews would be welcome as there's a tonne of big hype games coming out.

DanOB

ign.ie i always found a good site

Shryke

Gran Hermano wrote: »

I never trust gamespot, especially after the 'resignation' of a reviewer who slated a game from a company that had spent a shed load on advertising on the site.

What game was this?

super_furry

Eurogamer, Games TM and Edge. If the Penny Arcade guys mention that a game is good I'll take notice, but that's mostly it.

super_furry

Sandor wrote: »

What game was this?

Kane and Lynch.

elekid

I use www.gamerankings.com, it's a similar kind of site to metacritic

quarryman

super_furry wrote: »

Kane and Lynch.

i mentioned it in my original post

Shryke

I see. Thanks.

quarryman

Interesting, just noticed Metacritic, Gamerankings and Gamespot are all owned by CNET. hmmm...

johnny_ultimate

Usually would go to Metacritics and then follow links to the trustworthy sites. In general Gamecentral (not on MC but truly objective and insightful critics unless Transformers or Treasure are involved, but we'll give them those indulgences) and Edge would be my two most trusted reviewers despite occasional disagreement. Eurogamer can be valuable, but a little inconsistent. 1up are good for short and to the point reviews which can count for a lot.

I avoid IGN and Gamespot, mostly because there is a whiff of coporate influence off both of them, and can never quite tell if the author is being as truthful as others. The whole Kane & Lynch nonsense was a good example, which really removed a lot of Gamespots credibility. IGN also seems really immature. For news, screenshots and movies they are pretty decent, but their reviews can be rambling (no review should last 10 or more pages) and hyperbolic.

Can never forget listening to gamers themselves though. Coming on to boards a day or two after release is often the most effective way of guaging opinion and reaction.

humanji

I never really trust game review scores, myself. I read reviews to find out how the games play and what features they have and also any good or bad points they might have. I usually ignore the first and last paragraphs since the first one is usually a bad attempt at either sounding cool or sounding philisophical, and the last paragraph is just a summary of why someone I don't know did/didn't like a game I haven't played. The bits inbetween are just a reference.

Pity they don't rent PC games, actually. Renting was always the best way of finding out if a game was good or not.

thebman

exiledgamers.com reviews

I don't really trust anyone. I'll read a few reviews and make up my mind from what he's said rather than the score.

A lot of the scores for these games are off but the review reveals what the reviewer actually thought.

In saying that, Fable 2's review on Eurogamer was clearly a bought review. The reviewer was basically sucking their imaginary **** by the time he was done. Ridiculous considering the Team Xbox review.

pablomakaveli

What happened with gamespot and kane and lynch?

valleyoftheunos

I usually follow IGN.com

they have some of the bes content I've found and their Reviews are consistant, even handed and reliable. Many of the reviewers are former developers and they aren't afraid to slate a game when it deserves it.

Their Pod casts are pretty funny and informative too. Much better than some of the dross out there.

humanji

pablomakaveli wrote:

What happened with gamespot and kane and lynch?

Before Kane & Lynch came out, it's publishers spent a fortune advertising it on Gamespot. When the game was sent into Gamespot for review, the reviewer was honest and pretty much called the game a piece of shìt.

The reviewer was soon fired, although Gamespot claim it was unrelated and just happened to coincide with the bad review. I think the original review was removed and a more forgiving one was put in it's place.

pablomakaveli

humanji wrote: »

Before Kane & Lynch came out, it's publishers spent a fortune advertising it on Gamespot. When the game was sent into Gamespot for review, the reviewer was honest and pretty much called the game a piece of shìt.

The reviewer was soon fired, although Gamespot claim it was unrelated and just happened to coincide with the bad review. I think the original review was removed and a more forgiving one was put in it's place.

Fair play to him though.

i know this one isn't on the internet but i find the reviews on the games section of the Channel 4 teletext are very good. they aren't afraid to criticize where necessary and never seem to get caught up in the hype of some games. unfortunatly they only review one or two games a day so they don't do all games, but i think their reviews are worth checking out before buying a game.

Retr0gamer

humanji wrote: »

Before Kane & Lynch came out, it's publishers spent a fortune advertising it on Gamespot. When the game was sent into Gamespot for review, the reviewer was honest and pretty much called the game a piece of shìt.

The reviewer was soon fired, although Gamespot claim it was unrelated and just happened to coincide with the bad review. I think the original review was removed and a more forgiving one was put in it's place.

They left up the text review but his video review was particualrly scathing and they took that down.

L31mr0d

metacritic - Nice overall average

gametrailers - I like their format of reviewing and the fact its a video review so they can back up their opinions with actual footage of it happening in game

giantbomb - New home of Jeff from gamespot. Honest reviews mixed with some humour

Zero Punctuation - Who doesn't.

steviec

L31mr0d wrote: »

giantbomb - New home of Jeff from gamespot. Honest reviews mixed with some humour

Haven't actually been to his site but can't say I'm a big fan of his if his recent contribution to gametrailers is anything to go by. He was going on (with a completely straight face) about how he thinks Mirror's Edge and LBP will suck because they don't have enough violence and about how cool space marines are. He's become the embodiment of the stereotypical American gamer for me now.

Aside from the Kane & Lynch thing though I never really knew much else about him, when I read a Gamespot review it's a Gamespot review, I never take notice of who penned it, same goes for any site.

I tend to go to Metacritic and trust how the actual descriptions of the game sound to me along with any gameplay trailers rather than review scores, there's no reviews I'd automatically trust although ZP has to be the most consistent.

uncleoswald

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Fair play to him though.

i know this one isn't on the internet but i find the reviews on the games section of the Channel 4 teletext are very good. they aren't afraid to criticize where necessary and never seem to get caught up in the hype of some games. unfortunatly they only review one or two games a day so they don't do all games, but i think their reviews are worth checking out before buying a game.

+1

Oh and it is on the net:

http://www.teletext.co.uk/gamecentral/default.aspx

death1234567

I always use metacritc first as even the big games companies can't "buy" good reviews from every site. Then I usually check out gamespot and ign just because the sites layout and content is good.

thebman

I use gametrailers too because its nice to have the pretty pictures

BLITZ_Molloy

I don't like to be overly negative, but I think practically all game reviews written these days are absolutely terrible. The print magazines are monopolised by Future Publishing so paid reviews are rife, plus the wages for journalists are so poor that anybody worth his salt jumped ship years ago. The quality of the content doesn't matter to Future anyway because the magazine sells on the back of the covermount.

The online websites are even worse. Occasionally you'll come across a reviewer who has a good understanding of what makes a game good or bad, but they're generally so poor at expressing it effectively the review is worthless.

You've got the odd reviewer like Tim Rogers who is able to express himself well, but he's really just using the title "review" as a cover for one of his, nicely written, blog posts. He's got a couple of genres he's well versed in and everytime he tackles something outside that the results are incredibly misguided.

The only reviews I ever found consistently excellent were Stuart Campbell's. He has similar old school sensibilities to my own and is able to express himself correctly. Plus, they're an entertaining read in their own right. Insomnia.ac can be on the money some of the time too. Icycalm is a monumental prick and thinks he's a genius but just keep away from the forum and it's a nice site to visit.

silvine

Those are some pretty alternative sources Blitz_Molloy.

IGN is good but there is way too much content on the site. It's hard to know what they make of a game what with the numerous reviews they write about each game. Gamestop can't be trusted and always over-rate their games. I like 1UP and Eurogamer while Edge is a good read too.

Ultimately, if you use Metacritic, read several of the good and bad reviews, check Boards.ie and download a demo (if available) you should have more than enough information to make an informed purchase.

Burning Eclipse

L31mr0d wrote: »

metacritic - Nice overall average

gametrailers - I like their format of reviewing and the fact its a video review so they can back up their opinions with actual footage of it happening in game

giantbomb - New home of Jeff from gamespot. Honest reviews mixed with some humour

Zero Punctuation - Who doesn't.

This, is exactly where I go!!!

Bizarre

Although I don't take ZP seriously, just a bit of fun.... Wait, scratch that - I bought Psychonauts because of him!!

thelordofcheese

BLITZ_Molloy wrote: »

The only reviews I ever found consistently excellent were Stuart Campbell's. He has similar old school sensibilities to my own and is able to express himself correctly. Plus, they're an entertaining read in their own right. Insomnia.ac can be on the money some of the time too. Icycalm is a monumental prick and thinks he's a genius but just keep away from the forum and it's a nice site to visit.

Stuart Campbell is a professional troll and a hack, to hell with him and his brand of bullshit.

As for reviewers, i just ignore them, if it sounds like i'll like the concept of the game, i'll just take a chance on it. If it's bad, ohh well.
I know my own tastes well enough to know what will and won't appeal to me.

And then on occasion i'll pick up something that the internet in general has been buzzing about if i see it going for cheap. Sometimes i'm surprised.

L31mr0d

steviec wrote: »

Haven't actually been to his site but can't say I'm a big fan of his if his recent contribution to gametrailers is anything to go by. He was going on (with a completely straight face) about how he thinks Mirror's Edge and LBP will suck because they don't have enough violence and about how cool space marines are. He's become the embodiment of the stereotypical American gamer for me now.

He was making the point that, from his personal experience, mirrors edge might of been better in third person, and that the parkour might become repetitive, which it might. Also, on first impressions, LBP looks like a platformer so a lot of people might not shell out full wack for it. I mean if LBP was a PSN €20 title I'd buy it. But if its a choice between the new Prince of Persia or LBP, i'll be getting the former.

He's talking about what sells, and space marines blowing crap up sells. Also I think you might be confusing his statements with what one of the other reviewers was saying.

Vic Vinegar

L31mr0d wrote: »

gametrailers - I like their format of reviewing and the fact its a video review so they can back up their opinions with actual footage of it happening in game

Thanks for the tip! checked that out, i like the site.

thebman

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Stuart Campbell is a professional troll and a hack, to hell with him and his brand of bullshit.

As for reviewers, i just ignore them, if it sounds like i'll like the concept of the game, i'll just take a chance on it. If it's bad, ohh well.
I know my own tastes well enough to know what will and won't appeal to me.

And then on occasion i'll pick up something that the internet in general has been buzzing about if i see it going for cheap. Sometimes i'm surprised.

I'd go along with that except I read the reviews to make sure it isn't bug ridden and that you know, its actually a playable game because some games are great concepts but poorly implemented.

BLITZ_Molloy

Stuarts the best kind of hack. Anybody who doesn't think so needs to read his Gran Turismo review. Never has a review been so full of truthiness. Every other review of the game I read at the time never made any criticism whatsoever.
http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/gt4/review-gt4.htm

Metacritic is no use for determining a game is good because the vast majority of reviews all have the same opinion. If they flunk something everybody else likes, or have any original thought their audience flames the **** out of them. Thus everything is usually scored between 70% and 90% so that nobody gets offended.

K.O.Kiki

ActionButton.net
Cuts through all the bullsh!t.

Also Zero Punctuation, Edge, Eurogamer (ignoring the score is paramount), word-of-mouth, and my own judgement (which has failed me oh so many times).

Bubs101

Back of the box

quarryman

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

ActionButton.net
Cuts through all the bullsh!t.

that site hurts my eyes.