Who are your trusted reviewers?

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.

Retr0gamer

Varik wrote: »

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

Any examples of this? Considering they have the likes of Kevin Gifford working for them I find this very hard to believe.

SmurfX

It's long suspected that Polygon serve as a mouthpiece for Microsoft, they received 0.75m in startup funds for their site covered as a "donation for a documentary" from Microsoft. Make what you will of them fielding the lowest review score on a string of major Sony titles (most recently TLOU and Killzone), and how they frequently have Microsoft breaking news before anyone else.

If not compromised they're certainly employing the clickbait approach and run a lot of a very blatant forced controversial angles through their reviews of big games. GTA V notably.
They're widely considered the lowest of the low along with Kotaku and the escapist, if you're ever linking to them on a lot of gaming sites you usually have to qualify it with "I know it's Polygon but..."

ShadowHearth

Its final Bosman show. Great episode like always, but he does his "review" of Knack in the end. That review explains everything that is wrong with reviews these days.

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/yzn5mb/the-final-bosman-the-power-rankings

If you want to skip the show it self ( you should not to ) then go to 7:25.

Robert ninja

Retr0gamer wrote: »

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).

That's the problem with putting a rating on games. It's mostly arbitrary and doesn't really tell you anything meaningful about the game. I bet there wouldn't be half as many complaints about the whole review if they left the rating system out.

tok9

I generally have no issue with Polygon however I do have issue with their Killzone review.

Now I've only played it briefly at Eurogamer so I've no idea how good it is but the person who reviewed it had put up a tweet basically saying "Please God, don't make me review Killzone" If you're going into a review giving a game no chance then what good is that review?

Retr0gamer

I've always found the Killzone games to be very pretty but ultimately dreadful games so I can honestly understand where that reviewer is coming from.

tok9

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I've always found the Killzone games to be very pretty but ultimately dreadful games so I can honestly understand where that reviewer is coming from.

That doesn't matter. If you already hate a game before playing it, you're not going to give it a fair review.

johnny_ultimate

tok9 wrote: »

That doesn't matter. If you already hate a game before playing it, you're not going to give it a fair review.

So only Killzone fans are allowed review Killzone? Surely you see how problematic that idea is? A franchise critic's views are just as valid, and I've read plenty of reviews over the years where a new game has clearly changed a writer's mind on a particular series (going in expecting to hate something can be a good opportunity for surprise) Polygon has slated many Xbox One releases anyway: every 'anti-Sony' review one could cite has a direct equivalent.

tok9

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

So only Killzone fans are allowed review Killzone? Surely you see how problematic that idea is? Polygon has slated many Xbox One releases anyway: every 'anti-Sony' review one could cite has a direct equivalent.

I never said it was a Sony issue. I have no issue with Polygon's reviews of Xbox or PlayStation titles.

My issue is with the reviewer clearly stating he did not want to review that game. If he said the same for Forza or Ryse I would have the same issue.

You don't have to be a fan of the series to review it but at least have an open mind.

For example, If Retro told me K:SF was rubbish I wouldn't take much notice of that as he has already stated he thinks they are dire games. There are other games that I would listen to Retro's opinion but not this one.

In the same way if someone like Grayditch said K:SF was rubbish I'd be a lot more worried as he has enjoyed the other games in the series.

Now I know the latter may not be completely open minded either but I would take his criticisms far more seriously.

Zillah

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

So only Killzone fans are allowed review Killzone? Surely you see how problematic that idea is? A franchise critic's views are just as valid, and I've read plenty of reviews over the years where a new game has clearly changed a writer's mind on a particular series (going in expecting to hate something can be a good opportunity for surprise) Polygon has slated many Xbox One releases anyway: every 'anti-Sony' review one could cite has a direct equivalent.

There's a huge difference between someone that isn't a fan of a series and someone that publicly announces their distaste for a game before they review it.

Even if he was 100% objective when reviewing it, it's still bloody stupid to say something like that as it compromises the perception of objectivity, which is very important.