By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
naznatips on 13 June 2007
Edit Thread
ckmlb said:
naznatips said:
ckmlb said:
kn said:
ckmlb said:


 



I agree with you. I don't think the random Wii games deserver better than the mediocre reviews they have recieved. That doesn't mean they are bad games, just not incredible games. There is one case where I disagree and that's Sonic and the Secret Rings, but, I just said I disagree. See this is my point, I don't pay attention to reviewers because I don't really care what they think of the games I play. One of my favorite games of all time is Harvest Moon (most entries in the series are equally awesome). I loved Mario Kart Double Dash. I really could care less if big money company skewed reviewers like what I like, much less if I play what the general public consesus likes. I have owned every game system previous to this generation, because I found value in them. EVEN THE 3DO. That's right, the 3DO. Soccer kid kicked ass. This time I own a Wii, DS, and PSP. The difference this generation is I honestly don't have a reason to buy either of the other 2 yet. I may someday, but I wouldn't be surprised if I skipped them this generation. That's my personal choice, and I don't really care if reviewers are saying Halo 3 is 10s accross the board and the best game ever, because it doesn't appeal to ME. That's the bottom line. Reviews are based on the website's majority audience. Don't bother with them unless you are part of that audience. Do your own research, find your own methods. Who cares what some jackass tells you to play. That's not what gaming is about.


You're assuming that reviewers are skewed by the big companies which they are not, if you read EGM or 1up.com for example some of the most unknown and undersold games get as good or better than the biggest blockbusters because they are better.

These reviewers love video games, so they give credit where it's due unless it's not a credible orgnization but that would be the exception not the rule.

What if there was a brand new game and you knew nothing about it, would you not consult reviews to understand what it's about? I would, then I decide if it's worht buying or renting...

There are lots of other circumstances where reviews are great to have as a reference, you are the decision maker, but it's great to have insight into a game before you risk buying it or playing it.


It's not really assuming anymore. When you change the review of a game because you didn't score it high enough (Gamespot orignally posted Halo 2 at 9.1, an hour later it was changed to 9.4. Gamefaqs lit up about this), you kind of give away your alliegances. When you take a reviewer who has written MANY blogs about his dislike of Nintendo, and give him the review job for the BIGGEST game Nintendo is releasing that year (a game that won game of the year on many other sites, even over Gears of War) and he gives it an 8.8, it's pretty obvious reviews are biased. When reviewers crack "Gamecubes ductaped together" jokes (both IGN and 1UP love these) it's pretty obvious they are biased. When the sites are flooded with PS3 and 360 game advertisements, it's pretty obvious they are biased. Sure some games get fair reviews, and most sites have at least a couple fair reviewers, but as a whole the sites are not to be trusted.