Internet game reviews...How much do you trust them?

As an avid reader of Game Informer, I used to be stoked about what was coming out this month for my handhelds...untill an decline in quanity and quality of the games drove me to the web for stuff that I've missed. So nowadays, I catch wind of an new game, Google "X reviews" and read several of them. Then I decide if the game is actually shit, average, or worth buying based on the number of reviews and whatever they have in common.

/discuss

We kinda already have a thread for this: the Video Game Journalism thread.

I actually thought that thread was perma-locked over an sex-scandal

It wasn't permalocked. It was templocked. The topic was merely banned from the entire site. The thread itself is still open for anything else related to game journalism.

That thread wasn't on the first page. If you recall, the whole reason we have pages on the forums is because a troper complained about old threads never dying. So we don't need to defer to that old thread.

Anyway, that depends on who it is, if they actually play the game(yes, some "critics" don't) and generally I have to give them some time before I really "trust" them.

In other words, not very much.

Most game reviews on the internet I take with a grain of salt. While I'll usually accept the general info being laid out, I'll also usually read the little details regarding how they feel about certain specific things (like quality/fun factor of gameplay, how good the story is, how well-written the characters are, etc.) with the full knowledge that it's just their opinion and many people can encounter it and think different things coming out of it.

If the thread becomes relevant again, it can be brought back. The Video Games Journalism thread isn't even three months old, hardly old enough for a new comment to be considered a necro.

For me it depends on the source. I actually don't mind Gamespot's review method too much since they at least do try to be somewhat open to new concepts and indies. Yet their habit of ranking stuff like Halo or Co D with constantly high scores despite complaining about other cookie-cutter FP Ses being too generic is annoying.

Other sites like Rock-Paper Shotgun or Strategy Informer tend to have a bit of bias too, usually in favor of Indie games. Gets annoying when they start defending incomplete Early Access games with a horde of bugs yet trash others and complain about failing Kickstarter campaigns.

depends on who's reviewing. some people like ben croshaw are way too negative and have biases that i don't care for, so i don't take them seriously as reviewers. internet reviewers in general typically have a much different approach to reviewing games by necessity of their profession.

i'm more likely to pay attention to user reviews, frankly.

edited 7th May '15 10:09:12 PM by wehrmacht

Aside from Total Biscuit I haven't really found a single reviewer I can rely upon, they're much too favored of certain genres or certain gameplay types. Case in point the Game Replays.org crowd: if a game doesn't play like Star Craft or Command & Conquer and require a high level of mirco and reaction, it'll never take off with them. Case in point, the crowd asking for Wargame: European Escalation and later Wargame: Air Land Battle to have their own section wasn't a small one, yet GR.org never even bothered vetting the game.

A single game review says nothing. Multiple game reviews saying the same thing are probably on to something. But in the end, it's all opinions, so I generally only read reviews to see if the game that I'm currently eyeing isn't some bug-infested abomination. Or entertainment, if the person reviewing has some funny shtick of sorts.

Aside from Total Biscuit I haven't really found a single reviewer I can rely upon, they're much too favored of certain genres or certain gameplay types. Case in point the Game Replays.org crowd: if a game doesn't play like Star Craft or Command & Conquer and require a high level of mirco and reaction, it'll never take off with them. Case in point, the crowd asking for Wargame: European Escalation and later Wargame: Air Land Battle to have their own section wasn't a small one, yet GR.org never even bothered vetting the game.

i think when it comes down to it, the best of way dealing with reviewers' biases is finding a reviewer whose biases are most similar to your own or who is a person you can at least trust to evaluate the genre the game is in.

after all the point of a review, besides critical commentary, is to see if it's something YOU would enjoy.

I think that I treat game reviews more or less as I do reviews of any other medium: as opinions, the work as viewed through the reviewer's lens. That doesn't mean that those opinions are worthless, however—far from it; merely that they may call for viewing through the lens of one's own preferences as well. (I will admit, however, that I do give at least some weight to statements about the overall quality of a work.)

For example, there may be cases in which point raised as a negative by the reviewer is seen as a positive by the viewer/reader: I recall watching a video review of the remake of Clash of the Titans, which I think noted as a negative that it was essentially a monster movie—but since that's what I wanted of it, I took that as a positive and decided to watch the movie.

Regarding games specifically, one great advantage of video reviews, as well as video First Impressions and Let's Plays, is that one can watch the gameplay in addition to listening to the player/reviewer talk, allowing one to draw one's conclusions based on both the player/reviewer's points and somewhat-direct experience.

For example, the reviewer might complain about obtuse puzzles, but if the one sees these puzzles and finds them intriguing, then one may end up deciding to get the game nevertheless; on the other hand, seeing the puzzles and finding them indeed unfair might reinforce the reviewer's point, and prompt one to decide against the game.

edited 9th May '15 7:36:03 AM by ArsThaumaturgis

I'll tell you straight, if the reviewer shows that they know what they are talking about and especially if they discuss the content or mechanics then I would trust it. However there's a caviar to that: any review is based purely on opinion, my views and my tastes may differ from that of others.

Example? Take anime/Neon Genesis Evangelion for example, at the time it was groundbreaking but something giant mecha fans may not have liked because it was not all fighting. These days it might seem old hat or too weird or Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy sets in.

Another example may be Dead or Alive, girls with boobies, the end. Not quite, I personally would really like to know the characters...outside of the biblical sense, the story, and see what they do with the actual game.

Knights of the Old Republic, this earnt Game of the Year, but that was in 2003, does it still hold up today? I would love to see a remake done with the Mass Effect 4 engine but yes I think the story, characters, even the graphics hold up today.

Caviar? Caveat.

In any case, as one of those people myself (I do playtests for Siliconera as "Anthony" and run my own blog with occasional reviews), the point about people who know what they're talking about it a very major point. I'm lucky that I write at rather chill places that aren't too obsessed with putting things up on release day, or you'd bet I'd have needed to rush out certain write-ups. You also have to consider if it's the writer's cup of tea, as well.

The most blatant example of this affecting a game is one site that imported Senran Kagura: Shinovi Versus and gave it a high score. But, for the domestic release, someone else there handled it and gave it a terrible score. Guess which score's up on Metacritic?

JRPGs tend to get shafted in this regard, as many places don't seem to have people into those sorts of games and end up handing it to people who openly hate such titles. This is why I don't even look at reviews for games of that genre and instead look into player feedback.

edited 9th May '15 8:15:05 PM by burnpsy

evangelion is a series that is bound to be divisive for various reasons, the most obvious one being that it's fundamentally a show about mental illness, loneliness, self-loathing and suicidal depression. not everyone can relate to that, so they may find the characters unrelatable, unsympathetic or not fun to watch. i know a lot of people like to hate on shinji but he's actually one of my favorite anime characters even if i get frustrated with him like everyone else. there's no way to know if you'll like it unless you watch it yourself.

a lot of games are like that too, really. you probably won't know if you actually like final fantasy viii or xiii unless you actually go play them, for example.

edited 9th May '15 10:16:44 PM by wehrmacht

I usually trust reviews, but I tend to react negatively to hype. I don't like IGN due to their {{8.8}} tendencies and their bias against Nintendo and Sonic, but I take a quick gander at Metacritic before I make purchases like anyone else.

I also watch reviews for entertainment. I like Zero Punctuation because its purpose is to be as filthy and juvenile as possible, and I like Super Bunnyhop because it's the exact opposite. Yahtzee's always good for a laugh, but if I was going to buy a recent game, Super Bunnyhop would be the source I would trust the most.

I don't really play recent games, so that's unlikely to happen I guess. Overall, I like seeing if something's gotten an alright score on Metacritic just to see if it's worth the $15 I'm staking on it, but I'm aware that I might not like it even if it has a good score, that reviews are opinionated and can't be 100% objective, and I stay away from places I don't trust with my purchasing decisions.

The only game reviewer I trust is Some Call Me Johnny.

Granted, most of the games he's reviewed are games that I have played (not necessarily beaten) before discovering his channel 2 years ago.

Gamespot is fucking biased when it comes to Nintendo game reviews. For example:

Call of Duty: OMFG BEST GAMEPLY EVR

10/10

Mass Effect 3: OMFG BEST ENDNG EVR

10/10

Loz Twilight Princess: ........

meh

8.8/10

edited 9th May '15 11:01:16 PM by machop

Caveat, whoops sorry about that.

On anime like Evangelion or games like FFVII. we can discuss how people may not like the style or content all day. A good reviewer, I'm not saying I am one, but a good one would be able to say that yes this is what the story or style is and whether or not it would appeal. The full 3D of the Final Fantasy games compared to the turn based sprites of Suikoden for example, or whether the active battle works better.

To give an example I am blown away by the level of detail in the NBA 2K series, down to it matters what suit you wear. It matters what suit you wear. However that can get a little too fussy or there is too much of this extra detail when you want to just play the game.

Much like how some games like Mass Effect or Metal Gear may concentrate on the story, the cut scenes, too much. They are certainly well done and impressive but some may not like the games because there is not enough actual game in there, or think so.

As far as style and content goes, let's go with a controversial one in Spec Ops: The Line. Some reviewers either don't see the game personally attacking you as a gamer or are totally okay with that. I haven't reviewed the game myself but I would take it as written that it despises to an extent the shooting games, the attitude with war games. As far as eight year olds trying to act tough in multiplayer it may have a point but in trying to get across that War Is Hell, I stand by Conker's Bad Fur Day saying more in a thirty second parody on this.

In short like I said I would listen a lot more to reviewers who show they know the product they're discussing, they have played it, they can show how in say Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War that it really does try and show an epic story even if it may grate on some players, how the actual gameplay is just as good as anything before or since, how the missions are just the right length and difficulty, ect.

Funny, I'd rather play Zelda over Co D (sans Black Ops multiplayer with my friends...not online) or Mass Effect...and Zelda barely even cracks my top 10 favorite video game franchises.