Video Game Reviews...

[Vincent, Thunder God]

Yes. I would have bought Empire Earth III without a second's hesitation until I saw the reviews. It's universally acclaimed as dire, why would I spend the money? Yes, they MIGHT all be wrong, but it's not terribly likely, and it makes sense to put the money into a game which is widely lauded. If just one person says something's good, I'm not terribly likely to listen. If thirty different reviewers say it, I'll probably pay attention.

Is it the only factor? Absolutely not. For example I'm unlikely to ever buy a soccer game on release day, no matter how universal the accolades. And I know they don't always say things I agree with, nor do games always get the scores I agree with. But to suggest that I am in no way influenced by reviews would be silly and untrue.

In my experience, after reading several reviews of the same games, I find there are a lot of copy-cat reviewers though, who practically plagiarize one review to quickly boost the contents of their respective sites, so there's a good chance those "thirty reviews" aren't really thirty different points of view.

I have not discovered this in any way.

What review sites do you usually go to?

I found this was true of several sites that seemed to copy Gamespot and/or IGN - perhaps vice versa?

[Madame Adequate]

Well, first port of call used to be GS, until the Gerstmann business, since when I have found no particular replacement. After GS I'll hit up Metacritic and basically click on any link that looked interesting - whether to IGN or to some random print newspaper, doesn't matter. If the score is different from the majority, I'll check it. If the writing catches my eye in the preview, I'll check it. If neither occurs, I'll usually pick an internet-readable review at random and away.

[escobert]

I read them to get an idea of the game, but not as an end-all be-all guide to what I play.

[The Fat Bioware Nerd]

What about X-Play on G4? Do you guys ever listen to their reviews?

[Vincent, Thunder God]

Well, first port of call used to be GS, until the Gerstmann business, since when I have found no particular replacement. After GS I'll hit up Metacritic and basically click on any link that looked interesting - whether to IGN or to some random print newspaper, doesn't matter. If the score is different from the majority, I'll check it. If the writing catches my eye in the preview, I'll check it. If neither occurs, I'll usually pick an internet-readable review at random and away.

Yeah, I've used Metacritic, they host some articles from independent sites that write original, different opinions, that can work well enough, by your method.

EDIT: And no, I don't watch G4 John.

[Breine]

If there's a game I want, then no I don't care what the reviews say.. I'll just go out and buy it. But, if there's a game I'm a little interested in I'll definitely read about it and that includes reviews as well.

[LunarWeaver]

I definitely do. I also don't rent games and I can't be gambling 60 bucks on anything.

I think game reviews differ from those of movies because gameplay is a major focus. If the game is broken and unplayable, then it will get horrible scores no matter how pretty the graphics are or how great the plot is.

Like Milf, I hit up Metacritic and poke around the links I find interesting. I mean, if there's 32 reviews and 30 gave it a 90-100 then it's safe to say it deserves all its attention. If there's 32 reviews and 30 gave it a 0 then there's a problem. I very much take that into account. There are always a few that are radically different from the majority, but that will happen no matter what in any medium.

Oddly, I find myself attracted to GameTrailers these days. I look up their video reviews on YouTube (since the actual site is a big mess) and find I agree with them almost all the time. And they're long and explain their reasoning behind what they say. They've become my favie fave <3

[Evastio]

If I let game reviews affect me that much I would've stop playing Bomberman games eons ago (check Bomberman on Gamespot, see the reviews it got, and see what I mean).

Game reviewers should really be less biased.

[darkchrono]

I think game review sites/magazines gives you a much better overall picture of how good or bad a game is than say gamer reviews from a fan forum would. People who are reviewing the game professionally will review how good the game really is while fan forum reviews will pretty much just give a good or bad rating based upon rather the things that they were wanting to see in the game were in it or not.

So pay more attention to the advice given about the game from a review site than to what a fan forum says is good or bad about the game.

[Odaisé Gaelach]

Generally, yes. If I see a game I'm interested in, I'll try and find out if it's worth the money. Reviews are good; demos are better.

[Ashley Schovitz]

Nope I only read game reviews just for entertainment. I just buy games that i'll think I'll like it has only dissapointed one time so far.

[Northcrest]

Yeah all reviews I see influence what games I play and how good I think the game is. Only one game made me relize not to relie only on reviews.

[Gnostic Yevon]

I tend to put more faith on private reviews -- things like Gamefaq reviews. I tend to be distrustful of the pro reviewers for very simple reasons.

First off, like movie critics they tend to emphasize things that no one cares about. Some of them seem to want to bash the popular stuff just because it's popular. Yes, we've seen the same ol' ATB a million times before. That doesn't mean that it suck, it means it works. And just because the story is bland, gamers who like shooters probably don't give a fig.

Second, There are no hidden biases. Look at any "gamer mag" and you'll see the same games advertized and reviewed. Not a great shock perhaps, but that and the fact that they get a copy of the game for free is going to color the reviews they write. If they blow apart Call Of Doody by a major publisher, that publisher can pull their ads for other games. They might not get the exclusive interviews. Essentially the gamer mags exist to *sell games*, so there isn't a lot of incentive to disuade you from buying a crappy game.

The third thing is that game reviewers literally get the game for free, which is different from most of us peons who shell out $50 on release day. They can't really know how disapointed a fan of a game series will be when they preordered and bought the game at retail. They don't buy em at all.

With amateurs, you get a lot of advantages. Generally, they're fans of the genre and probably the series. So they're familiar with most of the conventions and the expectations of the game genre. If an RPG fan doesn't like an RPG, they won't hate it for being turn based, or having bad graphics or something that isn't a big deal to most RPGers. They won't rip apart Halo because the plot was predictable. They'll blast RPGs for boring plots and Halo for sluggish controls.

You also don't need to worry as much about bias. Square doesn't pay RPG fans to play FF, they certainly don't give away the gamedisks. The reviewer isn't going to be coy about his feelings. If he hates Sephiroth, he'll say so. If the soundtrack makes his ears bleed, you'll hear about it.

[The Fat Bioware Nerd]

You know it's funny sometimes well reviewed original i.p.s like Zack & Wiki will suffer from poor sales but GTA knock-offs like Scarface with mixed reviews will sell like hot cakes. I guess somtimes you don't need a solid original i.p. to sell video games...just a half-baked game with a popular license.

[Roto13]

I think there's a LOT more bias from amateur reviewers because they're more likely to play games they think they'll like. Take a look at your own video game collection and see how many games you have that are pure crap.