Worldwide up

[Alby_da_Wolf]

Michael-5 said:

Alby_da_Wolf said:

Michael-5 said:

Alby_da_Wolf said:

If KZ3 received reviews biased against it even before the reviewer actually played the game, like it happened with the worst GT5 reviews, I see a fishy pattern against Sony exclusives...

That's definatly true for some reviews. I noticed on IGN, KZ2 got 9.4/10, and KZ3 got 8.5/10, and the only drawback I saw them list was poor story. Even if the story/end boss was not as fun, a full grade score drop?

However at the same time, people expect more out of games. Halo 3 scored 9.8/10, but Reach only got 9.3/10. Reach is a better game then Halo 3 on every front, but because Halo 3 did what it did in 2007, when competing games were just nowhere nearly as polished, it got a higher score.

This is why you should read multiple reviews, and make your own opinion. Just like voting, don't just read one democratic or republican paper. Read one of each and accept what you feel is important to you.

Yes, I agree. Another faster but almost as reliable method, as it's not only about absolute values, but also personal tastes, is knowing a site or magazine enough to trust them. In the past I trusted PCZone, they were very strict, but in an equal way and their tastes were very compatible with mine. If they gave any score above 80, the game had to be very good, any above 90 meant excellent. I liked Charlie Brooker desecrating style and I knew that he liked RPGs generally, but not those with too many classic fantasy and D&D clichéd elements like trolls, goblins, wizards, etc, so, despite liking those elements a lot more than him, I could "weight" his review and get useful infos even when he was ranting. Now I don't trust any source as much as PCZone in its golden years, so I follow your method.

Alas, gamers less assiduous than us and more recently "converted", tend, at least initially, to trust any of the most known reviewer they stumble upon first, so a bad and biased review by one of them may do some damage. Luckily, the most casual ones often don't even know any reviewer and ask friends and relatives that play more than them, so the damage can be limited if the negatively biased sites aren't in a too large number. But undoubtedly they can do damages that only positive word of mouth and other reviews exposing and debunking them can at least partially remedy.

IGN used to be a lot more reliable. Up until 2007, I think they were fine. I liked how Metroid Prime 1 & 3 scored above Halo 1 & 3, but MP2 (one of the worst) scored below Halo 2. Everything fit and was consistant. However now there is so much bias and competition between PS3/360 owners, the reviews just bounce around. It depends on the reviewer.

I just take a bunch of sites, which I know give consistant ratings. Gametrailers is usually spot on with their review IMO, and for different games different websites are accurate. e.g. Nintendo Power is good for Nintendo games, RPG Fan is good for RPG's, etc.

Also some of the more extreme websites (the ones that give 100's too easily and then 80's, but never a 90) like Joystick, Gamestop, GamePro, 1UP, Worth Playing, etc, are just fun to read.

I think word of mouth is the worst way to judge a game. I have friends who tell me "Uncharted 2 is one of the best games I've ever played" and others who tell me "Uncharted 2 is Tomb Raider with a dude, multiplayer, and more cinematics, nothing special." People tend to be very biased, and they always want you to get what they think is best. I never listen to word of mouth, except when people tell me "Killzone 2 has one of the best ending boss fights ever." Then it's worth checking out, but I don't judge the entire game on it.

Yes, unless you know those spreading it generally share your tastes, but in this particular case (I should have specified it, I know) I was just meaning a very narrow use of word of mouth, specifically targeting negatively biased reviews and explaining why those reviews are flawed.

About review sites, as I don't bookmark them all (and even if I did, my bookmarks are a bloody mess) and I always forget some, I like VGC and GameFaqs games databases because they provide handy links to other sites reviews and other useful infos in a neat way. For older games, PCZone's archive online is still useful for me, but it's only one site and magazine, I can't guarantee they can meet someone else's tastes, and they are specialized on PC games.