Quantcast
How Trustworthy Are Reviews?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - How Trustworthy Are Reviews?

Im really not sure how other websites go through reviewing a game. But I can tell you how VGChartz reviews games. First of all, the reviewers have no contact with the company that made the game they are reviewing. Dan and I do all the talking to game companies regarding reviews. Second, there IS a desire to get a new game's review out quickly, but there is no penalty for taking too long. Every single review coming out of VGChartz has been written carefully and is that person's honest opinion of the game.



Brian ZuckerGeneral PR Manager, VGChartzbzucker@vgchartz.com

Digg VGChartz!

Follow VGChartz on Twitter!

Fan VGChartz on Facebook!

Around the Network
madskillz said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
madskillz said:
.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.


  Then explain why reviewers went to an acitivision showing of MW2 to do the review, all expenses paid.

 

Then notice that the user reviews of MW2 are far lower than the critics reviews of the game

I got invited to the same event - it wasn't paid - and even if it was, I would refuse. That really, really blurs the ethics line.

If you are getting goods from a person/company and the like - and things with the person/said company go south, you'll have in the back of your mind that 'Hey, they hooked me up with a favor.' Accepting gifts is forbidden. A T-shirt? A pack of energy drinks? That's minute. However, an all-expense paid trip - if you are a journalist, you are on the company's dime to be fair and balanced.

As I stated, anyone with access to a blog can claim to be a journalist. However, unless you've had classes on libel, defamation, ethics and the like, you're just fooling yourself.

I have seen tons of instances where gifts/perks have more than swayed people's opinions on matters.

Except Joystiq Admitted that they and others accepted it and that activision paid for it:

 

Disclaimer: The preceding review is based on an event organized and paid for by Activision, in which media outlets were provided hotel rooms, each equipped with an Xbox 360 and copy of Modern Warfare 2. As this was Joystiq's only opportunity to review the game in advance of its release, we willingly deviated from our standard policy of not accepting accommodations and used the room. We did so because we felt that participating in this event best served the interest of our readers. 

 

Seems to me they crossed the ethics line there

 

http://www.joystiq.com/2009/11/10/review-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2/



 

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)

Reviews suck.
I only look at the metacritic score.
If its above 80 then its good.



Avinash_Tyagi said:


  Then explain why reviewers went to an acitivision showing of MW2 to do the review, all expenses paid.

 

Then notice that the user reviews of MW2 are far lower than the critics reviews of the game

The reason for that is simple.  MW2 took away alot of things that PC players love, and therefore they downrated it whereever possible like crazy.  Done and done.



...

Torillian said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
madskillz said:
.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.


  Then explain why reviewers went to an acitivision showing of MW2 to do the review, all expenses paid.

 

Then notice that the user reviews of MW2 are far lower than the critics reviews of the game

The reason for that is simple.  MW2 took away alot of things that PC players love, and therefore they downrated it whereever possible like crazy.  Done and done.

LOL, or maybe its because the game was overhyped and under delivers, the PS3 version has 723 ratings, and the 360 has 1180, its not just people running around downvoting it because they didn't like the PC version.



 

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)

Around the Network
loadedstatement said:
Im really not sure how other websites go through reviewing a game. But I can tell you how VGChartz reviews games. First of all, the reviewers have no contact with the company that made the game they are reviewing. Dan and I do all the talking to game companies regarding reviews. Second, there IS a desire to get a new game's review out quickly, but there is no penalty for taking too long. Every single review coming out of VGChartz has been written carefully and is that person's honest opinion of the game.

I actually enjoy the reviews on the site as I know they are by someone who has played the game and are giving there honest opinion.

 



 

 

 

 

Avinash_Tyagi said:
Torillian said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:


  Then explain why reviewers went to an acitivision showing of MW2 to do the review, all expenses paid.

 

Then notice that the user reviews of MW2 are far lower than the critics reviews of the game

The reason for that is simple.  MW2 took away alot of things that PC players love, and therefore they downrated it whereever possible like crazy.  Done and done.

LOL, or maybe its because the game was overhyped and under delivers, the PS3 version has 723 ratings, and the 360 has 1180, its not just people running around downvoting it because they didn't like the PC version.

So you don't trust reviewers, but you trust random fanboys on the internet?  They don't even have to justify what their doing, just click a button.  Those 1903 ratings could all be done by 6 people. 



...

reviwers have become untrustworthy and quite predictable IMO. if u have game that generates a considerable amount of hype or u have a game that the reviewer actually enjoys playing himself its guarnateed to get a 9.0. and like 90% of these games that do get 9.0, end up sucking so ull then see 90% of these games in the overrated column




 

 

                     

Torillian said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Torillian said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
 


  Then explain why reviewers went to an acitivision showing of MW2 to do the review, all expenses paid.

 

Then notice that the user reviews of MW2 are far lower than the critics reviews of the game

The reason for that is simple.  MW2 took away alot of things that PC players love, and therefore they downrated it whereever possible like crazy.  Done and done.

LOL, or maybe its because the game was overhyped and under delivers, the PS3 version has 723 ratings, and the 360 has 1180, its not just people running around downvoting it because they didn't like the PC version.

So you don't trust reviewers, but you trust random fanboys on the internet?  They don't even have to justify what their doing, just click a button.  Those 1903 ratings could all be done by 6 people.

When most games are reviewed, the user reviews tend to be in the same ballpark, sometimes a little higher or a little lower, these many poor reviews of a game, which the critics supposedly rated so highly sends up warning flags, and its not the first I've heard of people saying the game was overhyped.

Sure it could be just a few fanboys dragging it down, but unlikely I've seen a lot of disappointment from this game, not just on Metacritic, but acorss a bunch of forums, and blog posts, etc.



 

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)

Avinash_Tyagi said:
Torillian said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Torillian said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
 


  Then explain why reviewers went to an acitivision showing of MW2 to do the review, all expenses paid.

 

Then notice that the user reviews of MW2 are far lower than the critics reviews of the game

The reason for that is simple.  MW2 took away alot of things that PC players love, and therefore they downrated it whereever possible like crazy.  Done and done.

LOL, or maybe its because the game was overhyped and under delivers, the PS3 version has 723 ratings, and the 360 has 1180, its not just people running around downvoting it because they didn't like the PC version.

So you don't trust reviewers, but you trust random fanboys on the internet?  They don't even have to justify what their doing, just click a button.  Those 1903 ratings could all be done by 6 people.

When most games are reviewed, the user reviews tend to be in the same ballpark, sometimes a little higher or a little lower, these many poor reviews of a game, which the critics supposedly rated so highly sends up warning flags, and its not the first I've heard of people saying the game was overhyped.

Sure it could be just a few fanboys dragging it down, but unlikely I've seen a lot of disappointment from this game, not just on Metacritic, but acorss a bunch of forums, and blog posts, etc.

And I've seen a bunch of people very happy with their purchase.  Guess it's your fake data against my fake data. 

And since when do you care about what people think?  I thought you were the ultimate proponent of capitalism like Colbert.  MW2 sold like crazy, therefore it must be great.



...