Who are your trusted reviewers?

Pac1Man

I know this is all subjective but which website do you head to first when investigating a new game? I have always headed to Gamespot first but they are losing me of late. I don't really like basing my opinions on Metacritic either because it compiles the bad with the good.

Manach

This forum.

MadYaker

I don't tend to read reviews that much, it's just 1 persons opinion. Id rather watch gameplay footage on youtube and make my own mind up. I almost never buy games on release date (steam sales ftw) so by the time I actually get around to buying a game the general consensus as to whether its good or not is pretty obvious.

Optimalprimerib

I usually go by ben yahtsee crossaw on zero punctuation. It is more comedy than a review as he slates every game, but with that he knows his stuff and does not be sucked in by the hype.

ShadowHearth

Trusted Reviews - Myself only.

I check gameplay videos mostly, see what few youtubers have to say about it. I do watch the reviews, but I never take them too serious.

Reviews lately became way too "personal". Reviewers put in way too much of their own preferences, instead of doing a neutral product review. Something that you like,love, might not be my cup of tea at all...

Robert ninja

MadYaker wrote: »

I don't tend to read reviews that much, it's just 1 persons opinion. Id rather watch gameplay footage on youtube and make my own mind up. I almost never buy games on release date (steam sales ftw) so by the time I actually get around to buying a game the general consensus as to whether its good or not is pretty obvious.

I have a similar attitude, but not all reviews are entirely bad. It depends on the game. If it's a fighting game, RTS, or anything on PC being reviewed by a console & ad-sponsored website, the reviews will almost always be garbage.

It's also a good rule of thumb to avoid any reviewers and sites that insist slappging arbitrary numbers/ratings on every game at the end of their 'review'. The number honestly doesn't tell you anything. At best, a compilation of user reviews totals would give you an idea of perhaps any awkward game mechanics or glitches... but that's even being positive. Reviewers and sites that focus on actually talking about and understanding the game, why it's fun or what's wrong with it, are usually worlds better than most of the junk you can find out there. Quick one-liner reviews by users are good if people are reporting stuff that might be a deal-breaker for you, like a feature that you hate in any game like health regen, super easy, mandatory grinding etc, that may cause you to indefinitely decide against a purchase.

Even given all that, I still haven't read a traditional review in a long time. I just stick to game info, some footage, see what people are talking about in forums. You can often learn more about a game by the things people are discussing about with other players rather than someone trying to dissect it (and miss something basic and important).

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Trusted Reviews - Myself only.

I check gameplay videos mostly, see what few youtubers have to say about it. I do watch the reviews, but I never take them too serious.

Reviews lately became way too "personal". Reviewers put in way too much of their own preferences, instead of doing a neutral product review. Something that you like,love, might not be my cup of tea at all...

You're right. And although it depends on the reviewer, typically the biggest and most sponsored sites will never give an entirely positive review to anything that isn't mainstream, full feature games.

Pac1Man

I never considered just watching some footage. Maybe that's where I have been going wrong!

ShadowHearth

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

I usually go by ben yahtsee crossaw on zero punctuation. It is more comedy than a review as he slates every game, but with that he knows his stuff and does not be sucked in by the hype.

If you did go by his reviews then in the last 5 years you played only Silent hill 2.

Dcully

Always found watching streams on twitch tv the best way to make a decision on a game before i buy.
Other than that i always found Kevin Vanord from gamespot one of the best and most honest in the business.

Venom

Mostly game forums like this one. I'll watch video reviews more to see what the game plays like rather than from any real interest in the reviewers opinion.

ancapailldorcha

I'd trust people here quite a lot for reviews. I watch AngryJoe and Totalbiscuit's videos on Youtube as well, though the word of anyone who thinks DmC is well written needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

dreamers75

No thread on games forum no buy!!!!!!

Have bought some **** games tho Starforge Alpha but it was cheap might improive.

Sarky

Friends. People with tastes and preferences and habits, humour and sensibilities I share, or at least understand. If they like or dislike something, it's a good indicator as to how I'll feel about it.

Also, Zero Punctuation. He might do it for the comedic value, but a critic is a critic and if he's struggling for bad things to say, the game is probably worth a look. He hasn't steered me wrong with the games he disliked slightly less than others.

Agricola

IGN - bastion of knowledge and truth!

But to be serious, probably Rock Paper Shotgun for any PC game. Have never had so much as a sniff of bias from any writer on that site, in fact the editor seems to delight in ripping into major releases frequently.
I'd read Eurogamer a lot and they do use people who are very knowledgeable about various genres to review games. Mismatched reviews/scores are becoming common though. Its not unusual to read a review which seems like a lowish number finish with and 8 on the end (or more) I often wonder about them when it comes to big releases. But I'd never base a buying decision on what one guy says so I find them great for getting a good well rounded opinion on a game with plenty of info on any issues it may have.

edit - Also Jeff Cannata off Weekend Confirmed. Always a well informed, balanced opinion.

Sound of Silence

RockPaperShotgun and PC Gamer are a pretty good barometer for what I'm interested in.

Randall Floyd

Gametrailers and Videogamer.com are usually near enough to the mark, but there are always some reviews that i don't agree with after playing the games myself.

Kiith

I've alway liked PcGamers reviews, but am cautious with any review tbh. It's all just so subjective, and i'd say it's hard not to let your personal opinions/preferences change a rating.

super_furry

Giantbomb and Edge.

VinLieger

Don't trust reviews at all, Rock Paper Shotgun would probably be the highest I would rate any though.

Before buying a game I load myself up on quick looks, be they from actual critic sites like Giant Bomb or simply some trusted youtube channel, they are the best barometer of whether you are going to enjoy a game or not IMO.

The review system is archaic imo which has become even more apparent in the last year considering the fiasco that were the Simcity reviews and now the speculation surrounding Rockstars intentions for releasing GTA Online 3 weeks after the main games release because they knew it would affect their review scores.

Reekwind

MadYaker wrote: »

I don't tend to read reviews that much, it's just 1 persons opinion

One person's informed opinion. I place far more trust in the opinion of a respected reviewer than I would a random forumite. No offence, peeps

In terms of reviewers, the RPS crowd are fairly solid and I know them well enough to be aware of their blind spots. For strategy you also have Rob Zacny and Tom Chick, both of whom are reliable

tok9

I usually see what said on Rev3games (Adam Sessler in particular) but I'd also just gloss over a few reviews.

I wouldn't be a big fan of watching a lot of footage of a game as that's the most important thing for me. I want to be surprised when playing it.

Generally though, I've a good idea what game I'll buy before reviews come out and it's only if it's absolutely panned that I'll reconsider.

jaykhunter

I go to GameTrailers, IGN and Rev3games (Tara Long/Sessler) for reviews. I treat reviews as a sales pitch really; under ten minutes, gameplay footage and some points to take on board. Like I generally know if I'm gonna buy a game already so I'm just looking for confirmation (eg Bioshock Infinite) or if the general consensus is to avoid (eg Flashback remake) in which case I'll put it on the back burner.

Retr0gamer

I'd say stay away from Gametrailers, IGN and Giantbomb. I always feel they ignore smaller games and mark them down for no reason and get caught in the hype train for big releases.

Rev3games is great but only for Adam Sessler. He's superb. The others not so much and Tara has the looks but I don't like her as a reviewer.

Usgamer has the best group of reviewers at the moment, a lot of old british games mag and 1up alumni there. I feel I can trust the reviews of everyone there except Pete. I like him as a reviewer and love reading his reviews but his taste for bad japanese RPGs is questionable.

Eurogamer has some great reviewers and some really poor ones. Dan Whitehead in particular is very poor but other than that they have a solid enough team and freelancers. Ellie gibson is always well worth a read.

Shiminay

This forum is great and there are a few people I recognise now as having similar tastes to my own. I also watch Zero Punctuation mostly for fun, but also knowing how my own preferences stack up against his own and then I can make a decision based off that.

I occasionally read RPS and the Penny-Arcade Report who tend to be better at giving you information about the game and what they personally liked or disliked and why and then leave it up to you to decide if it's worth your time which I think is a perfectly sensible way of reviewing a game.

Valentine1

I've always found IGN to be quite reliable with their reviews and I generally agree with their reviewers on games so I can usually depend on liking a game they like or vice versa.

I have also been going to Polygon recently, they are a bit up themselves but their reviews are very through and utterly comprehensive.

Retr0gamer

Old but worth a repost:

Valentine1

Touché, hadn't seen those before.

Retr0gamer

Valentine1 wrote: »

Touché, hadn't seen those before.

Well they have different staff now but was never really fond of IGN since the middle of the PS2 period. Not sure what they are like now.

Valentine1

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well they have different staff now but was never really fond of IGN since the middle of the PS2 period. Not sure what they are like now.

I find them diligent and self aware, some staff have well known and well flagged preferences for certain genres, series or systems. Knowing that allows the reader to identify with a reviewer and decide how much they value a particular opinion or review. At least thats my experience of it.

The only recent occasion I have disagreed with them was on Uncharted 3. Greg Miller a renowned Uncharted fan gave it 10/10, in my opinion is in no way a 10. In fairness it is probably an 8/10 in my opinion and I was always going to buy that game from the moment it was announced so the review didn't actually influence me.

Grimebox

Metacritic

mewso

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'd say stay away from Gametrailers, IGN and Giantbomb. I always feel they ignore smaller games and mark them down for no reason and get caught in the hype train for big releases.

Rev3games is great but only for Adam Sessler. He's superb. The others not so much and Tara has the looks but I don't like her as a reviewer.

Usgamer has the best group of reviewers at the moment, a lot of old british games mag and 1up alumni there. I feel I can trust the reviews of everyone there except Pete. I like him as a reviewer and love reading his reviews but his taste for bad japanese RPGs is questionable.

Eurogamer has some great reviewers and some really poor ones. Dan Whitehead in particular is very poor but other than that they have a solid enough team and freelancers. Ellie gibson is always well worth a read.

I don't agree or disagree Retrogamer but I am curious what makes Sessler some kind of godlike reviewer I see constantly praised here and poor old Dan Whitehead a bad one. I enjoyed his book on speccy games. I have read or watched little of either and Dan seemed fine (no strong feelings one way or another) and again what few videos of Sessler I have seen was fine. Nothing special to my mind. I suppose I need to read/view more of their stuff to form an opinion.

These days I try and keep an eye on RPS because it's one of the few PC only sites but the feminist stuff (one sad day ahead they will probably give Trigger warnings at the top of their articles) has really irritated me and often the first paragraph of each news item has far too many attempts at "quirky humour" going on.

Other than that I pop into RpgCodex and RpgWatch to keep up to date on those non triple A rpgs and kickstarters that are out there. I kind of balk at the whole obsession with triple A these days and often find myself really enjoying a game (think Risen 2 for example) completely against the hive mind opinion. I love a good triple A but there is so much good stuff out there. The guy who produced Torment has a kickstarter for example that is destined to fail which is a great pity.

Sonics2k

Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation is quite good. Granted his sole intention isn't too do a full blown review, but you can always get a sense if he really enjoys a game and will suggest if it's worth buying. Honestly, I'm yet to get a game suggested by him I didn't like.

Polygon are good too, but as other have said they are a bit pretentious in their reviews, but otherwise very dedicated and good results.

Guyanachronism

I like Angry Joe. I know he plays another over the top charachter but he is genuinely passionate and he did call out the terrible standard of gaming journalism due to journalists being in bed with games marketers. He does a good mix of games.

But if looking for older games, I just look at the overall review on wikipedia and then some youtube videos of gameplay.

Retr0gamer

mewso wrote: »

I don't agree or disagree Retrogamer but I am curious what makes Sessler some kind of godlike reviewer I see constantly praised here and poor old Dan Whitehead a bad one. I enjoyed his book on speccy games. I have read or watched little of either and Dan seemed fine (no strong feelings one way or another) and again what few videos of Sessler I have seen was fine. Nothing special to my mind. I suppose I need to read/view more of their stuff to form an opinion.

I find Sessler won't ever get caugth up in the hype for a game and isn't afraid to point out flaws in a game where others will brush over them. His DMC review is a good example, he didn't rubbish it but he was one of the few reviewers I've read that pointed out the minor flaws in the combat.

Dan Whitehead knows a lot about the Spectrum no doubt but I find his reviews of new games to be very poorly written and I'm always disagreeing with the scores he gives to games, which makes him a very poor reviewer for me.

Even worse is when he was in charge of reviewing retro games on Eurogamer. He doesn't have much of a clue outside the 8-bit micros so you'd see a lot of little known NES and SNES classics he obviously gave little time to get 6-5 out of ten. Sometimes he'd give timeless classics head scratching reviews as well, Megaman 2 should never be getting 6/10, and games that have aged very poorly would get great marks based on their legacy alone despite being unplayable now.

I'm really liking Polygon at the moment as well, they have some good reviewers.

penev10

I don't trust anyone!:P

EDGE are so hit and miss. Yahtzee is great for comedy but gets a bit wound up in the narrative (and he hates Dark Souls FFS!). A lot of other sites I have no real connection with as the reviewers are either one dimensional journo careerists or genre specialists (which generally results in massive doses of confirmation bias).

I usually know what type of game I'll like and you can normally tell if a game looks well made etc. I've picked up plenty of good steers on these very forums though.

ShadowHearth

Guyanachronism wrote: »

I like Angry Joe. I know he plays another over the top charachter but he is genuinely passionate and he did call out the terrible standard of gaming journalism due to journalists being in bed with games marketers. He does a good mix of games.

But if looking for older games, I just look at the overall review on wikipedia and then some youtube videos of gameplay.

I do Like AngryJoe too. Always have a look at his reviews. It is entertaining and he does have good ways of tearing games a new one.

MadYaker

Actually Id say I get most of my info from this forum, none of my friends are gamers so no point talking to them.

mystic86

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'm really liking Polygon at the moment as well, they have some good reviewers.

:eek:

The crowd that MS gave a wad of money to and who are so obviously downplaying almost everything Sony related?!

Reekwind

One thing that I will say is that I've got absolutely no time for review scores. It's a poor reviewer that can't get the quality of the game across in a few hundred words, instead relying on a numerical score

Friend Computer

Sound of Silence wrote: »

RockPaperShotgun

Must second this, I've been reading RPS for years and they've never steered me wrong. That's probably influenced by the fact that it's the only gaming news site I visit.

penev10 wrote: »

genre specialists (which generally results in massive doses of confirmation bias)

This is something I don't understand; why would you read a review by someone who isn't interested in the genre? If you're interested in a particular game then chances are you're already a fan of the genre so naturally you'll want to hear what someone else who's a fan has to say.

Chances are, as we have the same shared interest in a genre then we like the same things and, more importantly, the same things will bother us. I play a lot of RTSs, I want to know what someone who also likes them has to say about an RTS because they know--or should know--what makes a good one.

EDIT: Just want to say sorry if I sound abrasive there, it's not my intention to start a big argument.

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

He doesn't have much of a clue outside the 8-bit micros so you'd see a lot of little known NES and SNES classics he obviously gave little time to get 6-5 out of ten. Sometimes he'd give timeless classics head scratching reviews as well, Megaman 2 should never be getting 6/10, and games that have aged very poorly would get great marks based on their legacy alone despite being unplayable now.

You see, that's a problematic attitude right there. If someone can articulately explain why they think Megaman 2 deserves a 6/10 then it's a perfectly valid response. As few oppositional voices as you're likely to find when it comes to some cases, someone's masterpiece will always be another's failure. As long as they can both justify that response, it's to be welcomed. I haven't read the review in this case so it could be poorly written, but generally a viewpoint shouldn't be dismissed just because it's not the same as yours. Forcing everyone to agree is the kind of attitude that leads to an incredibly bland critical environment damn quick: it's perhaps even more important that the dissenters are heard amidst the overwhelming praise. A dissenting opinion can serve to help develop and balance your own responses and perspectives in interesting, worthwhile ways.

I don't know why game writers particularly are often so demonised for expressing an opinion that dares to differ from consensus, but certainly it has led to a less robust and varied selection of opinions than we get elsewhere. Disagreeing with a review doesn't make it bad - I know some of the best pieces of criticism I've ever read have been ones I have absolutely disagreed with, but a good writer will always argue passionately, intelligently and verbosely even if it boils the reader's ****ing blood.

Of course, some writers are just crap. The points above still stand.

SeantheMan

There answer is obvious. There is only 1 good reviewer !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw7Os-_BJMo

CONAN O BRIEN !!!

Retr0gamer

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You see, that's a problematic attitude right there. If someone can articulately explain why they think Megaman 2 deserves a 6/10 then it's a perfectly valid response. As few oppositional voices as you're likely to find when it comes to some cases, someone's masterpiece will always be another's failure. As long as they can both justify that response, it's to be welcomed. I haven't read the review in this case so it could be poorly written, but generally a viewpoint shouldn't be dismissed just because it's not the same as yours. Forcing everyone to agree is the kind of attitude that leads to an incredibly bland critical environment damn quick: it's perhaps even more important that the dissenters are heard amidst the overwhelming praise.

It was exceptionally badly written and quite obvious that he had given the game about 20 minutes at most.

penev10

Friend Computer wrote: »

This is something I don't understand; why would you read a review by someone who isn't interested in the genre? If you're interested in a particular game then chances are you're already a fan of the genre so naturally you'll want to hear what someone else who's a fan has to say.

Chances are, as we have the same shared interest in a genre then we like the same things and, more importantly, the same things will bother us. I play a lot of RTSs, I want to know what someone who also likes them has to say about an RTS because they know--or should know--what makes a good one.

Specialist may have been too neutral a word. Having a reviewer who specializes in RPGs say (as a lot of sites tend to have) is fine per say but usually its a genre obsessive who has their own ideas on how such a game should work and can be dismissive of innovation and/or ridiculously picky about certain elements.

Valentine1

mystic86 wrote: »

:eek:

The crowd that MS gave a wad of money to and who are so obviously downplaying almost everything Sony related?!

Doesn't sound like them, when did this happen?

Retr0gamer

I think they gave them money to do a launch video that also advertised Internet Explorer. Not exactly compromising if I've got that right.

mystic86

Polygon are most definitely biased against Sony

Retr0gamer

mystic86 wrote: »

Polygon are most definitely biased against Sony

I've heard that a lot but it just comes across as Sony fanboys whining when they aren't overly gushing about the latest Sony exclusive.

http://n4g.com/user/blogpost/oof46/522028

Everyone points to the Last of Us review. The reviewer gave it 7.5/10 which is hardly saying it's a poor title especially considering how harsh Polygon are. There's also the fact that the review is very well written review and the reviewer articulates very well his problems with the game. I can see his point and the game does have the problems the reviewer mentioned it's just for me they weren't that big a deal (and neither where they that big of a deal considering the praise the reviewer heaps on it in other areas and the decent score he awarded it).

The_Valeyard

I check gaming forums, see what the verdict is from them.

I do not trust any of the main publishers, magazines, etc. We have all seen the stories of how some of them were more or less paid to give certain titles great reviews.

johnny_ultimate

I feel sorry for the agnostic reviewers facing accusations of 'bias' whenever they criticise an exclusive game or feature. It's just ridiculous most of the time.

Varik

Would rate polygon lower than random youtube comments.
Everyone has their own opinions but Polygon will out right twist facts to suit themselves.

I'll generally have a idea of a game from previews, word of mouth, and personal interest by those who've played it, and nearer release I'll check metacritic for some of the lower/mid score to see if the issues they've found are warranted or will affect my enjoyment of the game.