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

Forums - Gaming - What are your most trusted review sites/publications?

dgm6780 on 08 September 2007

game informer mag & ign



Around the Network
demonluo on 12 September 2007
rocketpig said:
marc said:

User Reviews >>>>...>>>> Pro Reviews

Pros are just normal people anyway so there is no reason to give them any more credibility than anyone else (ie user reviewers are just as good until they are proven otherwise).

User reviews are better than pro reviews for three other big reasons.

1 - They are not being paid! (no pressure on them so they can tell you exactly what they think)
2 - The sample size is much larger (thousands of reviews vs. 10 pro reviews)
3 - You can track a reviewer that is most similar to yourself by reading his/her past reviews and comparing them to your own quickly and easily.

The only problem with user reviews is that about half of them are plain garbage (biased or childish reviews) but you can skim through those quickly so its not a big issue.


I couldn't disagree more. User reviews are often fanboyish in nature and you never know how many games that user plays a year. How much would you trust a user's Heavenly Sword review if they had never played God of War before?

Pro reviewers are generally unbiased as possible, they play a boatload of games a year (and therefore have a better idea if a game's features are new, innovative, or just another rehash of another game), and they generally have some kind of experience in writing and journalism. 

i don't agree, coz 100 to 1000+ user average review score always >>> any pro reviewer...

i recommend: gamespot user average score(fanboy vs neutral vs hater = more accurate)...

i don't recommend: vgchartz user average score(too much nintendo fanboy screwing sony game rating)

 



ckmlb on 12 September 2007

1. 1UP/EGM
2. IGN
3. Gamespot
4. Game Informer

In that order.

but 1UP/EGM is definitely far far ahead of the rest, great opinions across reviews/podcasts and shows.

Also, user reviews on Gamespot will likely have a majority of people who love a game, why? Because they will take the time to write a review of a game they loved. So I don't check user reviews too much on any site.



Thanks to Blacksaber for the sig!

ckmlb on 12 September 2007
Soriku said:
I used to use GS but they kinda lost my fondness.

 Aww... Nintendo games didn't get 10s?



Thanks to Blacksaber for the sig!

ckmlb on 12 September 2007
rocketpig said:
marc said:


I couldn't disagree more. User reviews are often fanboyish in nature and you never know how many games that user plays a year. How much would you trust a user's Heavenly Sword review if they had never played God of War before?

Pro reviewers are generally unbiased as possible, they play a boatload of games a year (and therefore have a better idea if a game's features are new, innovative, or just another rehash of another game), and they generally have some kind of experience in writing and journalism.


Completely agree with this. Also, I find it disturbing that people just gravitate towards the sites that agree with them to reinforce their opinions.

I like EGM/1UP cause they call it like they see it, they shit on games that fall short, give decent scores to games that deserve recognition and praise like crazy games that are awesome. 



Thanks to Blacksaber for the sig!

Around the Network
Rath on 12 September 2007
ckmlb said:
Soriku said:
I used to use GS but they kinda lost my fondness.

Aww... Nintendo games didn't get 10s?


 Seriously back off Cklmb, that was completely unnessecary.

On topic, IGN mainly for reviews but for rankings GR and MC. 



The_vagabond7 on 12 September 2007

that was unnecessary ckmlb, mods should set and example and act more mature than that.

I like penny arcade too. they don't review things, but they endorse what they like, make fun of what they don't, and call it like they see it. Praising things for their strong points bashing them for what they lack. But no numbers, so nobody calls foul.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

rocketpig on 12 September 2007
ckmlb said:

Completely agree with this. Also, I find it disturbing that people just gravitate towards the sites that agree with them to reinforce their opinions.

I like EGM/1UP cause they call it like they see it, they shit on games that fall short, give decent scores to games that deserve recognition and praise like crazy games that are awesome. 


Many people will flock toward others that agree with them. Personally, I just want to know if I'm wasting $50/60 or not so I generally use IGNs overall press rating and GameRankings.com. EGM is a good source if you only want to read one review, they're pretty harsh but fair.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

The_vagabond7 on 12 September 2007

I like IGN because they aren't afraid to critisize the system they are covering. Look at the editiorial on the wii site now complaining about lack of voice chat.



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Kasz216 on 12 September 2007

For new games IGN and Edge. IGN because statistically they seem about spot on and Edge because they are extra harsh and closer in line with how i review games.

For games that have been out a while Metacritic because then i can get the statistical averages and get a small blurb from each review as to why it's a good or bad game so i'll know it's greatest strengths and weaknesses based on what gets repeatidly mentioned.  It's also a good way to eliminate bias, unless the bias is inherent in the industry but then it's statistically indistinguishable from reality so who can say it's really bias?