Biased Sites

[famousringo]

sinha said:

HappySqurriel said:

With all the discussions of "Biased Sites" lately I have created a listing of 10 popular reviewers using the site stats from gamerankings.com ( http://gamerankings.com/itemrankings/sites.asp ).

The chart displays the sites average difference (from the average review score) for each platform minus the sites average difference for all platforms (from the average review score).

 

Site	Xbox 360	PS3	Wii
GameSpot	0.50%	1.90%	-0.30%
IGN	-0.60%	0.00%	-0.30%
GameSpy	-5.30%	-6.00%	-5.50%
GamePro	-0.90%	-1.60%	-2.90%
GameZone	-1.80%	-0.40%	-0.30%
EGM	-1.40%	-1.10%	-2.80%
1UP	0.60%	-0.10%	-5.30%
Eurogamer	-0.50%	0.10%	-1.30%
Play Magazine	2.00%	1.40%	-3.00%
Gaming Age	0.70%	-2.40%	0.90%
Average:	-0.67%	-0.82%	-2.08

When you selectively pick out sites for their anti-Nintendo bias, and those sites tend to be well respected for the most part, what does that say about the sites that display a pro-Nintendo bias in their review scores?

Why don't you make a similar list of the 10 review sites with the highest Nintendo review scores?

I don't think those sites have been picked for their anti-Nintendo bias, I think they're simply a selection of the larger and more popular game review sites.

 

Most of these sites don't come off as substantially biased at all. They'll just tend to judge games a little harsher or easier than other reviewers. Gamespy judges games much harsher than other reviewers, but the spread of <1% between different platforms shows that they aren't really biased. A spread of 2-3% is pretty reasonable.

 

The sites which obviously are biased are 1up and Play Magazine, with 5.9% and 5% spreads, respectively.