How reliable are video game review sites.

How reliable are the different video game reviewing sites on the internet. Do you think most of the guys who work those sites do a good job of reviewing games and their reviews would be a good indication on rather or not the game is worth playing or getting.

I'm asking this because I was on a message board pertaining to ncaa football '06. And they mentioned that they were going to see what people on that site said about the ncaa football '07 game before they went ahead and got it.

Well I then mentioned that they should probably instead go read some reviews on some gaming sites such as gamespot and that there reviews would probably be more reliable than any review you may read on some random message board. And then they went on to give me a whole list of reasons why I was wrong. Most notably they said that the review sites and the review magazines are given incentives for giving good reviews about a game. And that many of the companies that make the games pay the bills for those review sites.

So is that true and that the reviews on gaming websites are pretty much bogus and that they want to give good reviews to get extra money. Or do the gaming websites give a pretty accurate view of how good the game actually is.

gawsh... any reviewers better then me.


ovcourse I go against most things gamespot say.


now, interesting reads are critiquers.

I choose to look at internet site reviews for games rather than anything else, I would say there more reliable seeing as you can look at loads for different points of view....

Try and get a demo

My best advice when it comes to finding a good review site; look at reviews for games you already own on various site's. If you totally disagree with every one, then you're probably not going to agree with the opinions on future reviews. If you agree with everything they say, you might want to start basing purchase decisions on their reviews. It's better to have a broad spectrum of opinions as well. For example, I often disagree with places like Gamespt or mags like EGM, however I may go looking at their reviews as well if I'm really on the fence about buying something.

As for this idea that game companies pay the bills, well, they do. It's called advertising. Fact is though, the larger site's aren't going to have problems dealing out bad reviews because even if company A decides to pull it's ads, company B will probably be more than happy to get their ads in a major publication/site. Honestly, I doubt this actually happens these days. Pulling ads would probably hurt the company's sales more than the magazine/site.

There's one single opinion behind a review. Might as well ask your aunt to rate a game.

I don't use game review sites for opinions on games because they don't know what my tastes are. I take their score and assume a +/-4 fluctuation with my own opinion, and if that's still decent, then I'll check it. Though I'd much rather depend on the opinion of people I know with similar tastes of mine for whether or not it's worth picking up.

I think Gamespot.com is fairly good hit if you are just interested in what the game is about. They usually write nice summaries and discuss the main points of the game. However, do not even look at their marking. It's rubbish. One of my favourite games got only a 4.5.

The other thing that bugged me was that all the European games generally are in the lower ranks. Many sweet German and French games got kicked down all the way just because the English version had a bad script.

On the other hand, they write quite a bit on small things about the game, which you usually do not notice, e.g. a short game is often an allegory to some film, while the longer ones often resemble books.

So read it, but do not use it as a sole argument for getting or not getting the game. Ask here.

PS: And mind you, Chrono Cross didn't earn a 10/10. There are games that are just so much better.

The only accurate game review is one written by yourself.

One wo/man's opinion. I'll glean the tidbits I'll need, but other than that....meh.

I only read the reviews for games I usually don't plan on buying. However, if the review for the game has me interested, I may check what other sources say about the game, and based on what the reviews say, I may get the game. I usually do this on games I don't really intend to buy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent Proto

I only read the reviews for games I usually don't plan on buying. However, if the review for the game has me interested, I may check what other sources say about the game, and based on what the reviews say, I may get the game. I usually do this on games I don't really intend to buy.

---

You pretty muched summed up my response.

>>> I like to read game reviews, Fighting games usually get accurate and good reviews, In the other hand some RPG reviews are pretty biased and not accurate at all..

I trust the reviews of other gamers more than the pro reviewers, especially for the big-name games.

The way the reviews are decided just doesn't fit how most people get games.

The magazines and websites get the games free copies of the game. That isn't true for most people. Most people get a game because they have an expectation that the game will be fun.

Secondly, most of them don't play the whole game. They likely play for a short time to get an impression. When YOU buy it, you'll be playing for 40 hours, probably more. So the impression of a reviewer after 2 hours, probably isn't going to be the same as the view of a average player after 20 hours.

Finally, game reviewers review a lot of games. Tons of games. They've seen the same type of gameplay over and over hundreds of times -- before they start the one they're reviewing. So they're nit picky. They'll notice things that most gamers won't.

I know that for sports games the reviewers will generally play about one season with a particular team (they mention this alot of times in the reviews they give for sports games). And long enough for any other mode the game offers in order to get the gist of it.

And for rpg's and adventure games they would need to play long enough to get a good grasp of the story and the battle system and the majority of the characters in the game (which would probably amount to at the very least about half the game but I would bet the majority of them play the game through its entirety).

Other genres I don't really know.


And the only problem with trusting the reviews of other gamers rather than the people who are paid to review the games is that alot of times the gamers views will be just a bit over the top. If they really like something they will exagerate it to no end and if they don't like a particular aspect of the game they will say its a horrible horrible mess. I think the gaming sites give a much better neutral opinion and an opinion that would give a better overall overview of what will appeal to the majority than the gamers will.

I have a friend that absolutely worships review sites. He's always telling me what's the best buy before the game even comes out. I try not to let him influence my judgement because I go by the 'try-before-you-buy' policy and so I'm a big renter and demo player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

Secondly, most of them don't play the whole game. They likely play for a short time to get an impression. When YOU buy it, you'll be playing for 40 hours, probably more. So the impression of a reviewer after 2 hours, probably isn't going to be the same as the view of a average player after 20 hours.

---

How do you know that out of curiosity? Most of the sites/mags I read do actually play through all or most of a game when they review it. For example in OPM's review of San Andreas, the reviewer stated he played in the 40 hour range but didn't beat it. If he's not qualified to give an opinion on the game as a whole though, then hell, neither am I. When you consider most games aren't 40 hours long, and that there are usually so many editors on staff that they don't need each to review too many games, I see no reason to believe they aren't playing through most of the game. If anything, I've noticed in the past that some mags usually have fewer reviews from the editor who had to review the 40 hour RPG that month, than from the other editors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

Finally, game reviewers review a lot of games. Tons of games. They've seen the same type of gameplay over and over hundreds of times -- before they start the one they're reviewing. So they're nit picky. They'll notice things that most gamers won't.

---

I play a lot of games. I've seen the same gameplay over and over hundreds of times, but a great game is still a great game. Yeah they may nit pick sometimes, but so do I. A lot of places (at least the ones I read) aren't very quick to hold the little things against an otherwise spectacular game.

I absolutely never read reviews to try and figure out whether I should get a game or not. I'll read reviews sometimes for my own entertainment, though. I simply use my friends to figure out what games I should get.

Well, I personally think that fan-made reviews are usually kinda biased. I know that all reviews have to be biased in some way, but alot of times they seem to be more about telling people how much they liked the game rather than telling them about the game. I usually go to Gamefaqs to see the common score a game gets, and then I go to IGN or some other place to get info on the game. o.o

So, my answer is: Fan-Made Review sites are for seeing how many people enjoyed it, and official video-game info/review sites are better for getting info. :cool:

Yeah, fan-made reviews tend to be along these lines. 'If what I was wanting to see in the game was actually in the game the game is awesome'...... or...... 'If what I was wanting to see in the game was not in the game than the game sucks'

I think the professional reviews are a better indication of what the overall population may enjoy. Where as fan reviews are an indication of what one or two people may enjoy.