I miss the days when a video game reviews totally laid into bad games in a really honest, funny way. Nowadays, you don't see many genuinely critical reviews and each reviewer sees something different so we're relegated to using ratings conjunction sites such as Gamerankings. And it seems video game reviews are getting more and more tied up with the PR companies, so much so that they're almost becoming extended advertisements.

Also, numerical value is far too objective, a nine out of ten game for one person is not the same for another. If a perfect game ceases to exist, then what's with the numbers? Personally I'd prefer just straight up text reviews with an extensive breakdown of the gameplay so that I can make my own decision.

While I read the reviews from gaming sites to magazines I'm the only person I trust. As you said, a nine out of ten game is not the same for another. I use the reviews as a guideline to figure out what's wrong with the game and would it really matter to me - a majority of the time I'm happy with my decision but occasionally the overhyped-not-so-good game slips in (like Burnout Paradise)

Then there's the odd game where you have no idea whether you'll like it or not regardless of how many reviews you read because it's an entirely new genre (people like borgster who still hasn't played Ouendan and all those idiots who haven't played Dreamfall/The Longest Journey) :P

I end up not trusting any one site. Instead, if I'm interested in a game, I go to every site I can find, and try to average it out in my head. I do go to Gamespot first though. (Despite their questionable practices...)

I find magazine reviews are generally best to read, mainly Hyper.
I've based my buying decision on many of the lesser known games on a quirky Hyper review of the game.

I always went by gamespot score for any game I was considering getting. Now not so much. Usually I'll use their score as reassurance when someone tells me a game is awesome or something. Their reviews also might get me interested in a game and then I might go looking through forums and seeing what other people think about.

:lol:

Yeah, yeah, I still haven't got around to it, mainly because I'm playing too many other games at the moment, I only ever jump into the unknown when I have nothing else to play .. it's how/when I jumped into The Longest Journey and Dreamfall .. and of course that was such an excellent decision going to the unknown :D


Regarding reviews, I use them as a guide, and a variety of reviews, but they are generally more important for new games that I dont know much about, for established franchises, most recently Fire Emblem, I'll buy it regardless of reviews because I know what I like, and in the case of Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn it got some good reviews (8/10) but some average ones too (6/10) .. this is irrelevant to me, because I love the series and gameplay :)

I don't read reviews as much as I used to, and I don't see the point in spending $10+ for a magazine when the reviews are kind of out of date once it's on the shelves. When I do though, I usually always go to the big ones such as gamespot and ign.

I honestly don't know how to answer the poll.

I read professional sources like IGN and 1up for reviews but not EVERY review. Only in the absolutely must-haves for me which then renders the review as something to use to get an idea of what to expect rather than something to decide upon since I was going to get it anyway.

However if I was to choose one professional place as a place I trust, it would without a doubt be Hyper. I have been reading that magazine for long time now so I've gotten to know the little quirks (if you will) of the mag and what will then in turn be interesting to me or whatever. 90% of the time my opinion agrees with theirs so it works out quite well for me.

I also use other people's opinions as a guideline of sorts too like forums and the like. It's how I was able to get ICO, Katamari Damacy and a few other games so yeah these people have helped my tastes massively.

So er, I trust myself to make a judgement based on what I've read from other sources? Or not? *shrugs*

Like Nismo, I go to sites like Gamespy and Eurogamer to a get an idea on what to expect but I don't base my final descision on a review. I know what I like and I can tell when I game's crap. When you know who makes it, when you've played similar games, when you've read the reviews (also forums are helpful) and when you've played some sort of demo then you can decide.

I trust magazines to a degree. PC Powerplay seem to reflect my tastes in particular (yes, El Pres, I trust YOU. Don't let me down). However, I often find myself taking to the various forums out there and gauging the sentiment of the users.

You can usually tell from reading responses from people (and their responses to anything else in general) whether they're informed or full of it.

Aside from Josh Hull and ElPrez, there's no real reason to trust PCPP anymore. Fordham is a self involved dick who likes nothing more than spouting lyrical about some minor issue in a game and thinks he's writing a fucking novel, not a piece of criticism.

Ever read his F.E.A.R review? Almost a page on how the game uses FUCK too much. Whoopdedoo. Wax lyrical somewhere where I don't have to read you, you pretentious fuck.

Mr speedo.jpg is still cool though.

I can understand the frustration with any kind of lack of information relating to a game's worth, I do think there may be a tendency for some games to use coarse language gratuitously in order for them to appear "adult". I think Ben Croshaw has outlined this in his review of the Witcher (and yes, I realise that his reviews are geared towards entertainment and amusement, but he still has a valid point).

I don't remember too much of Fordham's review on FEAR off the top of my head, though, so I guess I'll reserve judgement until I re-read it. I think (from memory), he didn't like the "Office Space" references in there, either.

However, I do concede that getting information from forums can be flawed. Because even good games seem to get a flaying from forumites after some time - read: STALKER, Oblivion, Crysis etc.

I generally trust metacritic for reviews, but I tend to use it more for music and movies than games. IGN is the review site I generally go to, they usually seem to give a reasonable idea, assuming you read the US reviews not the Aussie reviews, they generally seem to share the general opinion... Alternately, gamerankings is a good alternative to metacritic for games.

I generally like to have a look at review scores before I buy a game so I know I'm not wasting my valuable money (even though I'll often buy a game and then not have time to play it... Which is why I haven't bought many games lately)

I don’t trust mainstream gaming websites at all. Things like the Gerstmann situation, the Konami MGS4 boondoggle, Matt Cassamassina of IGN (Wii section) being married to the VP of Nintendo’s US marketing firm, etc. Gaming websites that review games should refuse advertising and ANY gifts from companies whose products they are reviewing. There is absolutely no reason an $18 Billion industry can’t attract mainstream advertising to their websites rather than resort to lazy business relationships.

Matt Cassamassina is married to the VP of Nintendo's US marketing firm? :S (is that Perrin Kaplin or whatever her name is?)

No he's not.

I think his wife works for a company that has done marketing related activities for Nintendo, but Nintendo would be one of the companies likely many other clients.

Oops, after doing a bit more research I found this... IGN Editor Married to Nintendo PR Executive I guess I read into it more than I should have. Still, it's an odd situation...

*COUGH*

MODDING GENTLEMEN! This has been poll of the week for quite some time, no? :P

I blame television and rock & roll. :P