Do you trust game reviewers?

[Djinn]

These days it really seems like game reviewers want to mostly nit-pick the littlest things they can just to have something to complain about, as if complaining about some aspect of the game and being generally displeased was actually their job.

I see more screaming complaining from reviewers than I see...actual reviewing.

At least from the ones who are doing an ordinary review, when you bring youtube reviewers into the picture then it turns into shouting about how something sucks r is impossible simply because it's funny. Then the reviewing part takes a back seat to trying to be quirky and entertaining when complaining about a new game.

Things have gotten to the point where I really don't trust a single thing a game reviewer has to say anymore because it always looks like they want to complain since they believe that specifically is their job, or they want the viewer to laugh at it.

So do you trust game reviews any more?

 

[Lily]

Reviews have become a joke and I dont trust anything any reviewer says about any game. I'll try out a game myself if I feel interested in it, or I'll listen to close friends. Other than that there is always YouTube for gameplay.

 

[Dio]

I don't tend to read reviews much anymore. Mainstream reviewers are nearly all full of **** and are clearly paid to praise mediocrity and not to give the top scores to the best games like they should.

I prefer the reviews of friends who like similar things to what I do. That gives me a better indication of whether I will really enjoy something.

 

[the8thark]

So do you trust game reviews any more?

Yes - but this needs to be explained.

Trust to me, means you get what you expect. For example, I trust NintendoLife of the whole to give a decent review and they do. I also trust sites like Polygon and Ars Technica to provide garbage paid, half finished with various agendas attached and they do this more often than not.

The second part of this, is knowing what to read. The final score in a review is quite meaningless to me. It's the meat of the review that matters. Often the meat of a review is really well written, but the score feels all wrong when compared to the review itself. The score is always much to subjective and does not show the good and bad that every game has.

Finally, I realise that a review is just one person's opinion of a game. I don't always agree with their point of view. if that reviewer goes to the effort to try and justify their opinions with ingame examples then that's what a good review has. This is assuming the ingame examples given are not a lie. GameXplain have quite a few times over exaggerated or flat out lied about what issues a game has when they dislike a game. GameXplain are not the only ones that do this though.

A friend's reccomendation is really like a mini review. We have to trust that they are not recommending us a dud game or a game they know is obviously in a genre or of a type that we really don't like.

A good list of review sites you trust to give reviews that you like is a nice thing to have. This list does not have to be large, just a few will do.

 

[funnier6]

I usually check as many different reviews as I can to make sure I have enough information so generally trust.

 

[Dizzi]

I do like funnier and demos and friend refs

 

[Justac00lguy]

Metacritic acts as giving you a good idea of how the game is. I wouldn't call it unreliable. It seems the mean of a game's reviews gives an accurate representation of its quality. It's not the law, but just a general base so to say.

 

[Jirohnagi]

Not really, because we ended up with that one review of 7/10 too much water. Most reviews just strike me as the writer was paid to say good crap about the game.

 

[Ninja]

I really enjoyed the older Game Trailers reviews, they were entertaining and gave me great insight to the game.

Trusting gaming reviews in general is iffy. I don't use just one source for reviews, I tend to watch/read multiple reviews on a game of interest before pulling the trigger on it, as more sets of eyes are better than one.

 

[the8thark]

Metacritic acts as giving you a good idea of how the game is. I wouldn't call it unreliable. It seems the mean of a game's reviews gives an accurate representation of its quality. It's not the law, but just a general base so to say.

It does - sort of. I think the public average there is a good idea of how good or bad a game is. The critic average there is in my opinion not a good judge of how good or bad a game is.

 

[Link Floyd]

Not really. Especially not IGN. It seems like they often give bad ratings to games that are some om my favorites, like Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer or Stardew Valley.

 

[YIGAhim]

I never really payed any attention to game reviews.

I look at the ones that got 100%s (Like Ocarina of Time), but not anything else

 

[Turo602]

I wouldn't say that I "trust" reviewers. If I'm interested in a game, I'm going to buy it regardless of what anyone says. I use them more just to get a better idea of what to expect. They're also helpful sources of information on games I'm on the fence about. I also don't just pay attention to one specific reviewer or review site either. I try to get as many different perspectives as possible and even read comments on the reviews to see what other people think.

I think my biggest problem with reviews are their rating systems. Sometimes, it feels like a reviewer is saying a lot of positive things about a game and while the rating is a positive one, it doesn't quite match up with what they were saying. I also think a lot of people pay too much attention to scores without realizing what they actually mean. I know I've been guilty of checking scores in the past without actually reading the entire review. But now that everything is on Youtube, it's a lot easier to just watch the review. The added visuals are also a huge bonus as they not only show you gameplay of the game, but can also show us things that back up what the reviewer is saying.

With that said, I guess I trust reviews as much as anyone with a brain should. I pay attention to the necessary information, take note of whatever flaws or issues the person had, but can still judge whether or not something is for me and wait until I can form my own opinion without blindly taking something someone else said as fact.

 

[Castle]

I don't trust anyone... not implicitly.

But there are two kings of video game reviewers: those that write for IGN and those that don't.

Okay the difference is between the lying corrupt ignorant colluding slanderous virtue signaling agenda driven corporate press pages like IGN, Kotaku, Polygon etc. and then there is Joe the reviewer with a Patreon dropping 1-2 review videos a week from his bedroom webcam.

I trust Joe

 

[Mint Elv]

Too much water!

I actually don't check reviews for games usually. If I like a series then I'll end up getting the game. And the games I would like to check reviews for, I can't because they are so plot heavy, and the reviewers all tend to spoil everything in their reviews. They do step by step reviews. So to me they're pointless.