|
|
|
|
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
this just in: video game magazines are paid to give good reviews
this has happened since the dawn of time dude, sorry to shatter your hopes and dreams
|
I usually just stick with free online sites who make their money off ads and stuff rather than being paid to review games. And even then I'll check other reviews and not take any of them too seriously.
Most magazine reviewers don't have the time or skill to accurately judge a game, also the wad of money dangling in front of them makes it difficult for them to use their own brain.
|
the only reviews i bother read are about games i am interested in, not because they look cool or are hyped up to shit, but due to their developer and previous games.
A new game from bioware or blizzard for instance and i'll put some time into looking it up, because i know they are good companies from their previous games. Mag reviews are a nice read, but that's all i put into it.
|
I was just wondering if there are any independent review mags or sites?
Like can u give any examples please nytefish. I remember when gamespot was a little free magazine in the corner of game shops and it had sick honest reviews. It totally lost its way  .
|
Sweden33719 Posts
-_- Using Bioshock as an example of bias is kinda silly since it's a totally awesome game. And yes, I've played Deus Ex (aaaaactually now that I think of it, I think I might have forgotten to actually finish the game, since I couldn't decide which of the 3 endings I wanted lol :D).
Not sure which game I liked better (but thematically Bioshock, as well as System Shock are right up my alley so it's not surprising). Deus Ex definitely is deeper, but the atmosphere in Bioshock is really solid too - it's just not the same type of game. It's like, immersive political thriller vs atmospheric horror.
Anyway my point is, Bioshock getting 10s isn't surprising, maybe it should "only" get a 9 but meh.
|
I usually just google for reviews, I never rely on just one source though. I haven't been there for a while, but kotaku was quite good. It can be useful to see what stuff the big sites ign/gamespot say but take their opinion with as tiny a grain of salt you can imagine.
Also I find when sites hype up games too much you expect a lot and feel disappointed. So reviews that crap on games are pretty nice even if all they're doing is lowering your expectations. Like zero punctuation, although he does praise games too
|
On March 09 2009 22:20 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
this just in: video game magazines are paid to give good reviews
this has happened since the dawn of time dude, sorry to shatter your hopes and dreams
pretty much. it's not profitable any other way.
|
Well I read Gamereactor. But it is only in northern Europe.
I read the mags to get an overwiew of wich games that come out. I use my instingst to know wich games that are good.
If it is from Blizzard then it is a Must Buy 
|
I'd have pointed you towards shacknews.com before they got bought. Well, things haven't changed too much yet so it's still an OK place to check the general mood.
|
personally i care more about the actual review rather than the overall score.. the notorious gamespot/ign and kane and lynch review was obvious of this... a high score but in the review text it outlined plenty of negatives of the game, and even called some parts sub par before it was taken down and edited and the whole controversy started.
|
On March 10 2009 00:46 Neivler wrote:If it is from Blizzard then it is a Must Buy
Don't forget Valve.
I usually check metacritic, which averages all scores from most major reviewers, however, that probably won't stop "inflation" if everyone gives great reviews.
Zero Punctuation generally does a good job of giving his opinion of a game. By that, I mean if he thinks a game is crap, he'll say so, despite what everyone else says about it.
|
I've never really found any reliable review sources. I think it's good to just check out a lot of them. The trick is to look for as many cons as possible and then see if they're well founded.
Generally, I just hear about new games and check them out myself. First, I'll look at the game's website. I might skim a few reviews after looking at the site. If it looks promising, I'll download the game. After twenty minutes of playing a game, I know if I'll enjoy it or not, and then I can buy it. It tends to be give better results than reviews.
|
On March 09 2009 22:20 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
this just in: video game magazines are paid to give good reviews
this has happened since the dawn of time dude, sorry to shatter your hopes and dreams
Not to mention the reviewer is hardly ever from the same demographic as myself (and probably most other readers as well), so it's much better just to find user reviews of games than bother reading anyone who does it professionally most of the time. Sometimes though, if there's a new big name game coming out, it's nice to read a professional review just to get you excited and optimistic about it since you know you're going to buy it anyway. Like a placebo that makes it even more enjoyable just because you were told it's fun.
|
On March 10 2009 03:06 vAltyR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2009 00:46 Neivler wrote:If it is from Blizzard then it is a Must Buy Don't forget Valve. I usually check metacritic, which averages all scores from most major reviewers, however, that probably won't stop "inflation" if everyone gives great reviews. Zero Punctuation generally does a good job of giving his opinion of a game. By that, I mean if he thinks a game is crap, he'll say so, despite what everyone else says about it.
ZP isn't really the most reliable source for a review. He goes out of his way to complain about mundane things, and only reviews the biggest games/games that suck.
I still read some reviews from time to time, but I've always thought reviews were generally stupid. Unless you somehow come across a reviewer that has extremely similar tastes as you, they are virtually meaningless.
These days, you can play a demo of virtually any game you want before it comes out, so it's pretty easy to figure out if it's a game you like without reading anything.
|
On March 09 2009 21:58 HamerD wrote:
Right now I just don't trust ANY mag that I have found yet, and have to rely on fora to get good worthwhile reviews; which of course doesn't work that great because you want to find a person whose opinion you can read month in month out, getting an idea of whether your favourite video games correlate with theirs.
Maybe that's the same issue you're having with the magazines?
|
On March 10 2009 03:43 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2009 22:20 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
this just in: video game magazines are paid to give good reviews
this has happened since the dawn of time dude, sorry to shatter your hopes and dreams Not to mention the reviewer is hardly ever from the same demographic as myself (and probably most other readers as well), so it's much better just to find user reviews of games than bother reading anyone who does it professionally most of the time. Sometimes though, if there's a new big name game coming out, it's nice to read a professional review just to get you excited and optimistic about it since you know you're going to buy it anyway. Like a placebo that makes it even more enjoyable just because you were told it's fun.
The demographic issue I think is important. It's like when they rank the best beer or the best champagne or the best crab (eeevery fall in sweden, God I love crab), what the list says does not necessarily apply to you. Beer experts have learned to appreciate subtle tastes in beer, what they think is good may be undrinkable for the casual drunkard.
The same goes for game reviewers, sometimes they just don't know what they're talking about. A friend of a friend just happened to get into a game magazine and he got to go to E3 and stuff and do articles about new games and he doesn't even play games. Not to mention even the guys who give a crap have so much work to do they barely get to play the games.
Long story short, I get my unbiased reviews from Penny Arcade.
|
Just use the metacritic rating, or take a look at several ratings through a game's wikipedia. Bioshock was a great achievement in terms of its high quality production - It deserved the high ratings it obtained.
Paying off reviewers has happened in the past, and happens on occasion, but it's not been large-scale. Generally this involves advertising and one source. (See Kane and Lynch / Gamespot) Game marketing departments don't do this often, and it's almost always indirect. (A company which is being paid for advertising of a game generally will be more likely to promote a positive ranking to please their customer.) The industry doesn't promote this often, and it's looked down upon from those of us within the industry quite highly.
|
http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=37708
Read this article, it's great and covers what's bad about review sites.
Myself, I only use them to get a) news of new games, b) screenshots, c) videos. I don't care at all about the score or the reviews themselves. Although one can make a point that any game which they test as bad as like below 50% are usually really bad. But at the top, almost everything seems either subject to hype/marketing, corrupt/bought, or simply way too naive or short-sighted (e.g. giving amazing score for great graphics alone without taking into account the really important things like long-term fun).
|
United States47024 Posts
On March 09 2009 22:54 FrozenArbiter wrote:
-_- Using Bioshock as an example of bias is kinda silly since it's a totally awesome game. And yes, I've played Deus Ex (aaaaactually now that I think of it, I think I might have forgotten to actually finish the game, since I couldn't decide which of the 3 endings I wanted lol :D).
Not sure which game I liked better (but thematically Bioshock, as well as System Shock are right up my alley so it's not surprising). Deus Ex definitely is deeper, but the atmosphere in Bioshock is really solid too - it's just not the same type of game. It's like, immersive political thriller vs atmospheric horror.
Anyway my point is, Bioshock getting 10s isn't surprising, maybe it should "only" get a 9 but meh.
Actually, the more common comparison I think was between Bioshock and SS2, not Deus Ex, and in many ways its valid. The two are remarkably similar, despite the different setting and 8 years of graphical advancement. Bioshock was definitely a Game of the Year experience if you'd never played System Shock 2, but for someone who'd already been a fan of Kevin Levine, it could end up feeling a lot like more of the same (though, in fairness, SS2 is pretty hard to top).
On topic, I feel like this could be in some way related to why reviews are seeming a bit...inflated. A reviewer that hasn't played System Shock 2 is naturally going to think higher of Bioshock than one who has, and the same holds true of a lot of franchises or games from similar developers. Mass Effect seems a lot better than it is if you haven't played KotOR or Baldur's Gate; Oblivion seems a lot better than it is if you haven't played Morrowind or Daggerfall; Warcraft III seems a lot better than it is if you haven't played Starcraft; etc.
On March 09 2009 22:28 Nytefish wrote:
I usually just stick with free online sites who make their money off ads and stuff rather than being paid to review games. And even then I'll check other reviews and not take any of them too seriously.
Most magazine reviewers don't have the time or skill to accurately judge a game, also the wad of money dangling in front of them makes it difficult for them to use their own brain.
I actually have issues with some of these kinds of sites for reasons similar to the above. I've seen Kotaku reviews, for example, expounding the virtues of "brilliant game mechanics" that I've seen in games 10 years old.
Also, a related issue: is it just me, or do companies these days seem less inclined to release demos? Thats always been the best way for me to figure out whether I like a game, and they seem to be declining in number.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
