By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - How Trustworthy Are Reviews?

Reasonable on 19 November 2009

video game reviews can be very unreliable IMHO. Occasionally they seem to sync - Uncharted 2 being a good example, where almost every reviewer thought it was great and clearly most gamers think so too - which means that a clear majority are in accord about the game.

But generally, reviews can be all over the place for many titles, indicating a big lack of consistency.

Also, as you state, there is clearly pressure for certain big titles and franchises to 'go with the flow' and sing its praises.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Around the Network
madskillz on 19 November 2009

I have been reviewing games for a spell and I will say this - it depends on who's reviewing it and if they are biased or not. Today, anyone can call themselves a critic - they get an early copy of a game and post what they feel about it. For me, I approach every game the same way - why should someone spend $50 or $60 on a game? I will be honest and tell you if a game is good or not. That's it. It's up to you to do the research and ask yourself if the game is what you want.

With anything people review, you have to look out for sweetheart deals and agreements the devs/publishers have with some reviewers. They send them hella swag and other trinkets and hope it sways the person's opinion about the game. It does affect some people - most times, we give away the swag.

In the end, it's an interesting task - being of a fair mindset and speaking the truth, even if it means bashing a game. If the game is crap, it's crap.

Just my two cents.



radiantshadow92 on 19 November 2009

i go with the facts on the game to rate, not the fun factor, fun factor is just an opinion so its best to go with the facts when reviewing games....either way, i trust reviewers....they are usually spot on, espacially with metacritic, there is always a bad review and a good review unless the game deserves it



madskillz on 19 November 2009
.jayderyu said:
Reviewers get paid by advertisers. Big game companies are advertisers. Reviewers get free gamers from game companies. If advertising game companies don't like the reviews because, they put a strangle hold on the reviewer. I'm sure if you search around enough you can find enough cases of reviews being pulled because the company doesn't like the review.

Reviewers make good reviews by the companies that pay them. This is why some companies don't get as favorable reviews. They don't pay enough or/and the reviewer just doesn't spend as much time. There are of course where games are just bad and theirs little a reviewer can do about it.

Uh, no. I get paid by the Hearst Corporation not an advertiser. Where are you getting your information from? And free games? Not quite. You do realize the game is free, but the labor isn't? And if you can't write worth crap, you can ask all day and they'll never send you a game.

Reviewers have an obligation to report the truth. Sure, some reviewers overlook ethics, but a lot don't and just want to inform readers.

Reviewers make good reviews because they have literary skills. They have a very good command of their language and know how to make a story flow.



ECC on 20 November 2009
Onyxmeth said:
ECC said:
oh and when it comes to the HD twins every game is over hyped. im a huge call of duty player and mw2 is the worst call of duty game ever made (not counting side crap). it has more flaws than positives. a real reviewer who actually played the franchise from the start would have gave it a score in the high 7's low 8's. i dont know how gamers will say that treyarch next is worst than mw2 with a straight face. they will own iw in every way. w@w is a better game for the simple fact it tried something new unlike this game. also 90% of the maps are horrible.

every day i npend with this game i almost cant believe IW made it.....really the guys who made 2 and 4????nah!!!

World at War tried something new? Wasn't that the game that reverted back to the same war as the first three after Infinity Ward had completely upended the series by bringing it into modern day warfare? Seems to me you have it backwards.

thats a real black and white way of looking at things. 

 

how about the fact that in w@w you can actually have a real part with no need to scream back out!!!

spec ops is a horrible excuse for co op when in w@w you can play the full story mode with 3 random people! not to mention its a better story mode than mw2.

how about the fact that treyarch actually made maps that live up to the call of duty standard unlike the mazes that are the maps in mw2? i like maybe 4 maps out of the 16. oh and w@w werent nothing to right home about but damn atleast they were fun and you werent getting shot from random windows and ledges.



 

   
Around the Network
Gnizmo on 20 November 2009

I trust all reviews that agree with my opinion. I think all reviews that disagree with my opinion are worthless and should be ignored.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Onyxmeth on 20 November 2009
ECC said:
Onyxmeth said:
ECC said:
oh and when it comes to the HD twins every game is over hyped. im a huge call of duty player and mw2 is the worst call of duty game ever made (not counting side crap). it has more flaws than positives. a real reviewer who actually played the franchise from the start would have gave it a score in the high 7's low 8's. i dont know how gamers will say that treyarch next is worst than mw2 with a straight face. they will own iw in every way. w@w is a better game for the simple fact it tried something new unlike this game. also 90% of the maps are horrible.

every day i npend with this game i almost cant believe IW made it.....really the guys who made 2 and 4????nah!!!

World at War tried something new? Wasn't that the game that reverted back to the same war as the first three after Infinity Ward had completely upended the series by bringing it into modern day warfare? Seems to me you have it backwards.

thats a real black and white way of looking at things. 

If you're calling me out for having a black and white stance, then why aren't you taking the grayed stance in between? Just taking the other side of the argument means you're behaving as black and white as I am. Do you understand the term you're using?

how about the fact that in w@w you can actually have a real part with no need to scream back out!!!

I've read this sentence back and forth and I just can't make any sense of it.

spec ops is a horrible excuse for co op when in w@w you can play the full story mode with 3 random people! not to mention its a better story mode than mw2.

This in no way proves that MW2 didn't try something new, which I thought was your argument. Spec Ops is brand new, and so is the story. Your personal opinion on either does not dictate whether they are a fresh experience or not. 

how about the fact that treyarch actually made maps that live up to the call of duty standard unlike the mazes that are the maps in mw2? i like maybe 4 maps out of the 16. oh and w@w werent nothing to right home about but damn atleast they were fun and you werent getting shot from random windows and ledges.

Yet again, this has nothing to do with MW2 not trying something new. In fact you just made a point of how different these new maps are than previous Call of Duties which would mean Infinity Ward tried something new. See how that works?

I don't really think you know what it is you're arguing about. I get that you're upset at this game, but if you want to make a point of stating that IW didn't try something new, at least back up your argument with something. Anything really.



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



marc on 20 November 2009

Reviews should be treated objectively. I like to use a more statistical method, 1st make sure you wait at least 30 days before reading reviews (people are not objective early on), then take 2 pro reviews and 8 mid score player reviews and make up you mind based on those.



Avinash_Tyagi on 20 November 2009

^Problem is, reviews are subjective, and usually written by people who aren't objective at all, and even have animosity towards certain types of games, this is especially true with Wii game reviews



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

ECC on 20 November 2009
Onyxmeth said:
ECC said:
Onyxmeth said:
ECC said:
oh and when it comes to the HD twins every game is over hyped. im a huge call of duty player and mw2 is the worst call of duty game ever made (not counting side crap). it has more flaws than positives. a real reviewer who actually played the franchise from the start would have gave it a score in the high 7's low 8's. i dont know how gamers will say that treyarch next is worst than mw2 with a straight face. they will own iw in every way. w@w is a better game for the simple fact it tried something new unlike this game. also 90% of the maps are horrible.

every day i npend with this game i almost cant believe IW made it.....really the guys who made 2 and 4????nah!!!

World at War tried something new? Wasn't that the game that reverted back to the same war as the first three after Infinity Ward had completely upended the series by bringing it into modern day warfare? Seems to me you have it backwards.

thats a real black and white way of looking at things. 

If you're calling me out for having a black and white stance, then why aren't you taking the grayed stance in between? Just taking the other side of the argument means you're behaving as black and white as I am. Do you understand the term you're using?

how about the fact that in w@w you can actually have a real part with no need to scream back out!!!

I've read this sentence back and forth and I just can't make any sense of it.

spec ops is a horrible excuse for co op when in w@w you can play the full story mode with 3 random people! not to mention its a better story mode than mw2.

This in no way proves that MW2 didn't try something new, which I thought was your argument. Spec Ops is brand new, and so is the story. Your personal opinion on either does not dictate whether they are a fresh experience or not. 

how about the fact that treyarch actually made maps that live up to the call of duty standard unlike the mazes that are the maps in mw2? i like maybe 4 maps out of the 16. oh and w@w werent nothing to right home about but damn atleast they were fun and you werent getting shot from random windows and ledges.

Yet again, this has nothing to do with MW2 not trying something new. In fact you just made a point of how different these new maps are than previous Call of Duties which would mean Infinity Ward tried something new. See how that works?

I don't really think you know what it is you're arguing about. I get that you're upset at this game, but if you want to make a point of stating that IW didn't try something new, at least back up your argument with something. Anything really.

zombie mode..... if thats not enough i dont know what is. 

i dont know if your trying to be blind to the actual improvements that last years game made to the call of duty experience?

its fine if you just dont want to agree because you like the game and dont want to be told otherwise but come on everything above is fact and you cant go around it or try to dismiss it.