Game Reviews: How often do you trust them?

[Eternal Rain]

There is a bit of a double edged sword with game reviews: while some reviews may help us feel better about our potential future purchases, there's sometimes a score for the same game out there that ends up being surprisingly quite different. This can then make you wonder, "which source should I trust?"

Naturally I'm someone who feels that it's better to make your own opinion, but at the same time I know games are expensive nowadays and sometimes you just need to know if a game is worth your time. Thing is, though, that sometimes there are moments where I do question if a certain source is all the trustworthy.

Recently I've started to wonder about IGN, and no I don't mean about reviews concerning the Nintendo side of things. For example, the game "El Shaddai" recieved a pretty good amount of great scores from various sources, but IGN's score sticks out because they only gave the game a 5/10. Most recently, I Am Alive recieved a 4.5/10 from IGN when it recieved scores around the 8 range from many other sources, Silent Hill: Downpour got a similar reception, and now today I learn that they gave Ninja Gaiden III a 3/10, while other sources like Official Xbox Magazine gave the game an 8/10.

Now truth is that if IGN gives a game a high score I tend to agree with it (many games they gave high scores have been games I really enjoyed), but lately it's starting to become hard to trust the site when some of their scores have ended up being significantly lower than the majority, making me wonder if they're even getting the right editors to do said reviews (for example: making someone who hates football review a football game, why would you do that? You know he or she is just gonna hate it).

Anyway, so how do you feel about certain game reviewers, or just reviews in general?

[Mako]

Overall, I think we can trust game reviews. Sure, the scores become more inflated every year, but they still give you a good indication of how good the game actually is. If there are some reviewers who give the game a score that is way too high or way too low, it will be easy to see when you compare it to the other reviews. Maybe a number system isn't the best thing to use though, and I admire RMC for moving away from that. Too often, people just look at the score and not the actual content of the review. So, maybe we should try to move away from scoring games and going to something different.

[Nintend()\/\/|\|312]

I think trusting a game reviewer to be honest is rarely a problem. The fact that review scores vary so greatly supports the idea that people are being honest. Once everyone across the internet and beyond start giving all games the exact same score, then it might be time to be suspicious.

However, I think the question being asked is closer to, "How often do you trust that a review you read is going to reflect your own opinions on a game once you purchase it (if you do)?" In this case, I often stick to reading reviews from people with game tastes that are similar to my own and base most of my purchases on what they have to say. For some reason, I seem to like the same types of games as Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, from Zero Punctuation fame, so even though his reviews are mostly humourous rhetoric, I still find them surprisingly useful. I also find my tastes falling in line with Adam Sessler's from G4TV most times. Plus, I find Metacritic occasionally helpful. I know a lot of people chastise it for trying to make something quantitative out of a giant conglomeration of opinions, but it is a nice way to get an idea of what the general attitudes on the quality of a game are. The greater the number of game critics that like a game, the greater the chances that I might like it myself.

Given that everyone, even people from the same site, are going to review certain games quite differently than others, I think the only way to get any kind of decent consistency is to stick to a group of reviewers that share some of the same tastes in games as you do. Really delve deep into what they say in their reviews, as well as what they write elsewhere, and see if what they are saying sounds like something that might come out of your own mouth (or fingers). If you love football and a reviewer for a Madden game clearly states that he or she does not, that review is going to be useless to you, and you will have used your time more effectively by searching for another review than giving that one a second thought.

[HylianTom]

I can't remember the last time I sought-out a game review. Instead, I go onto YouTube and search for a "Let's Play" video for the game I'm considering. This method of game evaluation hasn't failed me all generation long, and it has spared me the B.S. of dealing with typical game reviews.

[Sailing_Day]

While reviews themselves are still pretty useful for gathering opinions of a game for me, scores are garbage. That's mostly because in the world of "game critics" scoring is quite arbitrary. This is further reinforced for me by the fact that the median score for "average" games is inexplicably skewed to 7, and anything below that is "bad." it doesn't make any sense to me, like whenever GameSpot gave Twilight Pincess an 8.8 and everybody was up in arms about it. How is 8.8 bad? I think it's a rather fitting score for TP. Things have at least been getting slightly better, but still. I don't trust many big name game critics because of it.

But anyhow, I like to mostly watch video reviews and play-throughs to decide if something is worth getting or not. And speaking of Zero Punctuation, although it is mostly for humor, it is useful that he often points out the annoyances everybody likes to ignore when talking about higher rated games.

[thresholdXCI]

While reviews themselves are still pretty useful for gathering opinions of a game for me, scores are garbage. That's mostly because scoring in the world of "game critics" scoring is quite arbitrary. This is further reinforced for me by the fact that the median score for "average" games is inexplicably skewed to 7, and anything below that is "bad."

Thank GOD, I was beginning to think I was the only person this really bugs. Also when people who can't be bothered reading a review get really irked at any hint of number inconsistency. Oh and don't get me started on Metacritic whores.

A review I'll trust is one that's written calmly and to the point. Not some flowery garbage that's just pretty (or horrendous) imagery, or clever metaphors. Tell me what you liked, why and what features you didn't like and why. I'm capable of then making an informed decision whether the game is something I'd enjoy or not. Otherwise the review would only be useful if I share the EXACT taste with the reviewer, which is a million to one.

[Broken_Cartridge]

When I read reviews I make sure that I read multiple ones from different sites/magazines. Normally when there are points that are made across all of them then those points end up being true. I completely ignore the number.

[Blue_Falcon]

Never, because the grand majority of reviewers have no idea what they’re talking about. Usually, reviews are proportional to the hype-factor of any given game (e.g. Final Fantasy gets a 10, but some other lesser-known JRPG that plays more or less the same gets a 5). Then there are paid reviews (basically all the big-budget titles) and reviews based primarily on secondary elements such as aesthetics and musical scores. Often a game will be blksted because the reviewer just sucked (see: Jim Sterling and Vanquish) or didn’t take the time to properly understand the mechanics (see: most reviews of fighting games and shoot-em-ups). Another problem is that reviews are usually rushed, and this quite apparent in complex games. I haven’t read a ‘professional’ review in like two- three years. Besides, I know enough about myself, so one trailer and I’ll usually know if a game is for me. If not, I’ll just wait for the second trailer.

Concerning review scores, they are a fundamental element of any review, and I’ve already posted why here: viewtopic.php?f=43&t=80667&start=75#p590222