Game Reviews

[Xanatos]

The more I read game reviews these days the more I have hard time to take them seriously. Games these days slide by with almost anything it seems as long as they have big chief's stamp on them, I miss days when reviewers actually had balls to shave points of AAA titles for same mistakes they eagerly point in other games. Tons of bug's and glitches, barely playable on PS3, instead of hearing "sorry Skyrim, that's one point less" we have "well, that's what we expect from Bethesda so I'll keep a blind eye on that". Same game with little to no difference, little to no personality and non existent character development, bare bones of a story that's already been told several times..., huge minus to a game that nobody really cares for, but just the opposite for a game like Zelda, because it's ****ing Zelda.

Not to mention the obvious bias of certain reviewers towards certain titles. Then again, there's pressure from developers and we all know what mindless fanboy rage over one point less looks like, so I guess, I can understand meaning behind this. Besides, it's not all that bad, decent and honest reviews can be still found outthere, I just don't rely on them as much as I used to.

How much do you rely on reviews and what do you think about reviews in general?

[Kurt Zisa]

I only turn towards reviews if i'm thinking of buying a game or if there's two I want to compair to see which is best. I tend to stick to reveiws from IGN, the seem to cover more than other sites do (this is asuming you meant online reveiws).

From experience they do quite a good job. I've bought about 4 or 5 games after checking out the reviews and there's been no regrets. That said, I usually buy a game a few years after it's been out so I haven't read a review for any new titles.

[Andromeda]

The bias in video games reviews is something that is not new. It is rather interesting out being a video game reviewer is considered a joke at times, even though the reviews themselves are highly valued from important sites. The amount of difference between them and something like a movie reviewer is surprising, though probably far too often compared against.

The most recent thing that I certainly found a little odd, as did the commenters. IGN just reviewed FFXIII-2 and gave it an 8, while commenting throughout the entire article that aside from story it was a superior game to the original, which got a 8.9, and probably rounded up to a 9, by their current grading standards. A little strange that a game that's stated as being superior all around minus one point is nearly a full point lower.

Reviews don't really have an importance to me. Sure I want the games I enjoy to score well, but at the end of the game I don't really care because I still enjoy it. Either way, it is this sort of odd occurrences that end up hurting things. Two years have passed, but if there is going to be such a difference you sort of would expect a more thorough explanation to it. Though I think despite the fact that it is FF and they ran tons of videos for them, it's fallen from their interest and graces, considering that they only bothered for a single page review.

That aside, it is usually better to read the substance of the review rather than the numbers. In spite of the numbers often being inaccurate, most reviewers tend to be harsher and more critical in the actual review. Which is granted, the one of the main reasons you probably made the thread. The words and the final score don't match with each other.

Reviews mean a lot to the industry, the actual score and not the words themselves. Because scores can be put on trailers and covers, people with their ten second attention spans look at numbers and make purchase judgment solely on that. So it is very important for developers to make sure they get those numbers to get the most people interested. And then eventually, you reach that point where none of it really matters, because you're so popular that people ignore all faults and can only give good scores. There are rumors of all sorts of back room dealings, in fact I think there was a scandal with a magazine sometime ago.

It is a pretty bad cycle too though. Because magazine circulation is down, internet is taking over. So magazines bend over backwards to get the attention of the popular games. Get them on your cover and you'll sell. But if you end up reviewing them badly after it all, they may end up not being willing to give you a cover anymore. They will ignore you because if you were not favorable, then way spend time on them. So then magazines do everything that they can to keep those that keep them alive, happy.

A vicious cycle that feeds itself. The only way that you would end up not having that cycle, would be having a magazine that has a large readership and isn't dependent on sales by having the big titles ignore them if they really have a terrible or unoriginal game that is derivative.

[Zargabaath]

I care more for the content of the review than the score. A number does not tell me the faults and triumphs of a game. Words do. It would be nice if game reviewers did away with numbers and focused solely on the article. Perhaps, it would then in turn make gamers more knowledgeable. There is a section of gamers that heavily rely on the numbers, debate other gamers about games constantly bringing up what Game J got compared to Game Q.

I do feel like reviewers should spend an exorbitant amount of time on the game they are reviewing. Because, as Xanatos, mentioned Skyrim should have been slammed harder than the glossy praise it was given. That is not journalism. I may recall incorrectly, but wasn't Oblivion after some time had passed viewed as not a good game by the consensus? Not saying it was buggy and all like Skyrim but it seems that reviewers don't really get in-depth with their game(s). Great example: Dragon Age 2. Pretty well received yet trashed by the community. Big disconnect.

Xanatos, I was (pleasantly) surprised that Gamespot gave Skyward Sword a 7.5 with one negative being "predictable formula" which is all too true with the Zelda franchise and Nintendo's big franchises in general yet they are fawn over. 7.5, means it is a good game. I'll say that. Yeah, Zelda games are fun and good but not great or beyond. Not now at least. Talk about stale franchises that keep to the bread and butter you talk about Nintendo.

Andromeda, that problem does not lie solely with magazines. It applies with the whole gaming journalism community. Bad review. Ok, then the studio won't give you an interview or invite your correspondent to a conference. I believed I've mentioned it here before but there is no actual journalism in the gaming industry. News outlets are largely spoon fed information. Which, going back to the bad reviews, they may not receive any of that to share if they don't "play nice". Rarely do journalists get a real good scoop. The publishers have total control.

I also found that XIII-2 getting a lower score at IGN weird too. And it is by the same reviewer too making it weirder.

[Xanatos]

I totally forgot about Gamespot, I was pleasantly surprised by that review as well. Just imagine the sheer magnitude of nerd rage all over that article.

[Mystyrion]

When I go looking for a new game by a developer I haven't heard of there are multiple things I go looking for.

First is gameplay videos or a demo of possible. Gameplay is always important, If it looks boring most likely it will be boring.

But obviously that can leave out some major flaws like, crippling story line, too many glitches, short or repetitive game.
So those are the things I look for through multiple reviews. I usually tend to read smaller based sites because that's where I find most of the truth comes out. I use to read GamePro until I got taken over by pcmag or whatever it was. They would go out of their way to play bad Games and bash them. They weren't afraid to be harsh on the big games either.

If I had to go off numbers, I would choose metacritic user scores.

[kaizokuluffy]

Here is the best bits of FF9 Final Fantasy 9 (IX) Best Of Collection - YouTube what more could you want???

[Cissnei]

I take reviews just as they are, gussied up opinions. Ever since I saw one of my favorite games (The 3rd Birthday) get slammed in reviews just because of how different it was from the other two, I really stopped paying much attention to them.

That's one of the reasons why I play games and write my own reviews for them. ^^

[ZantetsukeN]

Reviews are ok, it depends who is doing them. I do very small chunks of a review in my Let's Play videos (like I will talk about an aspect of the game I like/dislike), but I never rely on a video to make or break a purchase for me. I end up liking the games no-one did anyway. For example, Nier. Nier got some really terrible reviews (3 or 4 out of 10s mostly), and yet it is one of my favourite gamer ever made. Also Bayonetta got 9 or 10 out of 10 most of the time, yet it is on my list of the worst game I have ever played. I hated the damn thing.

The worst reviews on the internet? Kotaku. Do NOT rely on Kotaku for reviews ever. I like Kotaku for news and features, but their reviews are awful. They base the scores on a 'Yes' or 'No' to the question 'should you play this?'. Poorly written reviews all round. I remember a while ago they would review stuff without playing every aspect of the game, and only playing, for example, the single player campaign for about 2 hours. That's rediculous.

For good, in depth reviews I will turn to magazines rather than internet. Mags like Edge and Gamesmaster do some really great reviews.

[Angantyr]

Generally I don't bother with big name sites because there is clearly some personal bias that may arise and its suggested that they are often paid off. In general I try to stick to reviews from individuals or actually hearing somebody talk about said game. There is also the problem of different interpretations because on the surface it might look like it appeals to somebody when it doesn't. On top of that something might not look appealing at first you might enjoy much later on.

The 1-10 system is a good system but most people use it on a 7-10 scale often throwing around 10s like candy and anything less than an 8 is a horrible piece of trash. I prefer to keep a more accurate approach where a 5 doesn't make something bad just on the average side and give the better series an 8 leaving 9 recieved for the best and 10s for something absolutely amazing.

[Cyanist]

I don't read reviews unless the game has passed my prelim tests.
Initially, I just look at some pictures of the game (if the main character doesn't whoa me, fine, I can make SOME allowances...
Then I check out moments during gameplay (this is the important part) I immediately dismiss ones with anything that looks like a first-person-shooter type, or anything else that could give me headaches and from that I decide whether or not I wanna play the thing. Then, and only then do I proceed to the review. And THEN, I usually ask people on-line about it.
So, there's like four screening tests.